singer songwriters?

[Death]

i nevar had the guts to start a debate on the old forum (i was dem0lition) but here goes..

for those who havent collared on yet there is a wave of singer songwriters who have taken pop music by the reigns and have influenced previous teenpop sensations in their search for a new image. artists like avril lavigne, michelle branch and vanessa carlton swiftly changed the direction of popular music over a short period of time. their style of music, which suposedly sports more depth than the average hit, caught on quickly. it seems to me (though openly criticise this i could be entirley wrong) that artists from the then teen wave such as justin timberlake and christina aguilera maybe jumped on the band wagon for a new image, but from interviews i have seen they have tackled this arguament and insist that this was the direction they have always wanted to go in. the question i pose to you now is: is this wave of singer songwriters the saviour of popular music or is it another phoney fad?

[PoofBird]

what you call popular music is the tip of the iceberg.
It's 5 percent of all that is made.

Whether your style of choice is metal or hiphop, house or punk, indie or klezmer... there are more and better bands underneath the surface

and under that surface is where the changes take place. Once something catches on, the surface will follow.

No artist you named has any effect. They are harmless. they follow the trends that other people create.

[Dr-Electro]

When I see the term: "singer-songwriter" I think of the late John Denver, Jim Croce, Otis Redding and now Johnny Cash. These were the innovators of their time and each perfected his own style in his own way.

Earlier, Big Momma Thornton, Little Richard, Ray Charles and Carole King put music in other people's mouths as well as their own and cut new trails through the business. I particularly like Little Richard's insane style. Nobody could copy him, although many tried.

Lennon and McCartney had a little effect with the original material they penned, but they were the fad followers of their day, doing a lot of cover songs, like the rest of the garage bands of my time. I know I covered a lot of the same songs, but was totally lacking in the commercial success department. the Beatles were millionnaires before they could legally vote.

The Bird is right, those kids today are following trends set by others. I like to listen to what American radio folks call "Alternative" radio stations because they have the orignial material. I don't try to keep up with who wrote what or even who performed the recording any more. I just listen for music I like.

[Drachewyn]

Originally posted by Dr-Electro
When I see the term: "singer-songwriter" I think of the late John Denver, Jim Croce, Otis Redding and now Johnny Cash. These were the innovators of their time and each perfected his own style in his own way.

What about Harry Chapin? I agree with you on John Denver and Jim Croce. Those are two of my favorites.

Originally posted by Dr-Electro
I just listen for music I like.

Same here. What I like spans many styles, artists, countries and even languages.

[Micky]

The realms of 'pop' music (or at least what is conceived to be 'pop') and genuinely talented singer-songwriters rarely, in my opinion, converge. Then again, I am generally cynical towards people who claim to have written their own work, and surprisingly often their music is based on overly used chord progressions with a new melody - something a computer could get very close to accomplashing.

The people I see as good singer-songwriters who are also popular at the moment are mostly bands who aren't really 'pop' (in the boyband/girlband, 'music industry' sense), such as Coldplay, Stereophonics and Travis (these are the most obvious ones that come to mind).






(I apologise for the gratuitous overuse of inverted commas)

[Dr-Electro]

Yes, Harry Chapin. Also on the subject of guys named Harry, let's not forget Nilsson. He was a true maverick.

Yes, Micky. I like coldplay myself. I was not aware that they wrote their own. They are a talented bunch.

[Thoaar]

Cat Stevens also comes to my aging mind, as does Neil Diamond and ...
oh I better shut up or people will think I'm older than Dr E ;)

as far as the debate topic is concerned, it seems to me each generation is going to go through its cycles of canned overproduced music and real originals, each having various amounts of exposure to the masses. The best of the lot will stick around for years to come.
I prefer to listen to a lot of different things and decide which ones I like and which I don't instead of relying on fads or trends to determine what is 'good'

[Sloth]

Bob Dylan, Warren Zevon, and ummm Joe Cocker?

i'm 24, hope that makes you feel better thoaar...;)

[PoofBird]

joe cocker never wrote his own material,

though i'd like to add Neil Young, Tim Buckley and Nick Drake

[Sloth]

Originally posted by PoofBird
joe cocker never wrote his own material,

though i'd like to add Neil Young, Tim Buckley and Nick Drake thx... i didn't know.. hence the "ummmm" and "?"...:)

[Glimpse]

em i dont believe that Avril is a songwriter

I thought her songs were written by the same person who writes for Shania Twain

[PoofBird]

Avril does write her own songs

that is what puts her aside from other pop acts (although her work is heavily influenced by her producers)

she even won some songwriting awards.

Speaking as a songwriter myself: she did a superb job, gripping and catchy tunes at the age of 17, that is a very rare talent.
Let's hope she'll grow out of puberty quick and get a new style. Then we can be amazed.

[Mystical Parrot]

i prefer artists who write their own music manufactured music and bands (ie westlife) are crap and should be replaced with people who actually thought about what they were singing and even if it was produced and altered by other people its still there work

i have more respect for artists/groups who do that than manufactured crap souly out for money and fame

[GorillaBearBear]

I Don't like to dismiss out of hand anything classed as pop. Obviously I have more respect and am more inclined to respect and enjoy singers who write there own songs, and so my favourites are people like Leonard Cohen, Bob Dylan, Ryan Adams, Muse etc. However I like a few of these pop artists. Like people say that Michelle Branch is unoriginal and just a pop artist who writes her formulaic tunes as though rolled off a conveyer belt, and I say - so what? I like some of the songs. I think they're good music. And to those who say that music can't be good if it's not written by the singer, isn't that kind of like saying that Pavarotti is crap because he doesn't write the music he sings, or Klara Kormendi is a crap pianist because she only plays pieces that other composers have written? It's kind of stupid when you think about it.

[ah_pook]

And all music is written by somebody, and instruments that aren't "their own" are still played by someone too. If a song was written by the guitarist does that mean the singer can't feel the emotion?

I used to be in the rockist crowd a few years back, but the more I think about it the sillier it all seems, in fact, the methods in which artists are manufactured almost seems better: rather than making do with a couple of untalented fuckwits in your band because you're mates with them and performing rubbish because you can't write any better within the 4 of you, you get professional session musicians doing the music, better songwriters writing your songs and so on.

Oh yes, I forgot, people who write their own songs and perform their own songs and play music to their own songs are showing their overrated "real feelings and emotions". Having been happy/sad/in love/out of love/angry/scared/contented myself, I'm pretty sure my life will be none the worse if I never hear musicians explaining it all to me again. There's a lot more to get out of music than hearing the artist express themself, yet that seems to be the only argument anyone has for four university mates becoming a fully working music machine with no outside help.

[DaisyDeadPetals]

OK, I'm only saying one thing, because I get flack for it.

Tori Amos.

[Thoaar]

if you want flack you should've said Debbie Gibson ;)

[DaisyDeadPetals]

Originally posted by Thoaar
if you want flack you should've said Debbie Gibson ;) Or maybe Britney Spears :p

[Dr-Electro]

*flack*

I like Debbie. I don't care much for Britney. I also like Pat Benatar and want her to hit me with her best shot. *takes shot* Oooooooooooo!:D

[Drachewyn]

Yeah Pat Benetar is cool. I can't think of any at the moment that are still alive I like...

Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison and Micheal Hutchence are all that come to mind at the moment.

Both Kurt and Michael I at least liked when they were alive. I am not old enough though to have been into Jim Morrison before he died :)

[Micky]

ah_pook, your argument jumped around a bit, but I thought I'd respond to one point for now

Originally posted by ah_pook
There's a lot more to get out of music than hearing the artist express themself

I'm not entirely sure that's true, but it depends on what each individual listens to music for.

My main annoyance are groups whose writers simply recycle old ideas time and time again, but are written specifically to appeal to certain parts of the population. Call me a musical snob, but if I hear a piece of music with an identical chord progression (for example) to a previous one, it begins to get tedious.

[Dr-Electro]

Good thoughts as always, Micky. I think the term that best describes what you are getting at is "Derivitive" as in something derived from a previous thing. Alabama had one big hit and derived four albums from that one progression. I got sick of them!

Today's artists are little or no better than many from the past. The first two Beatles albums were mostly derivitive, but after that Lennon and McCartney began to shine as writers. Then they got psychedelic (meaning high on everything from LSD to Shrooms and back again) and invented a whole new musical world.

Other people pull derivitive work into a commercial success. Like Chicago and Carlos Santana. Original in the beginning, not so original later on. I'm just not quite into today's music enough to be objectively critical of it. You young enthusiasts have your finger on the pulse, so critique already.

[Bum Clouds]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PoofBird
[B]Avril does write her own songs

No wonder they suck so badly!! I have a burning hatred for Avril Lavigne.:evil:

[Dr-Electro]

Lots of American boys think Avril is eye candy, but they are ashamed to admit it. No one will admit publicly that they like her music. I personally don't care. She looks too much like one of my nieces, whom I consider to be a complete loser. Sorry if anyone is offended by that sentiment, you don't know my niece.

[Beir_Gee]

A few things:
Avril does not write her own songs, at least she
doesn't write them by herself, all her song are
co-written by someone called "The Matrix."

In my opinion, if you write your own songs,
you are a better musician than people who
don't, it's as simple as that. Sure, you probably
know the feeling(s) the songwriter is describing,
but the words are his/hers, and not your own.
Therefore, it will never be "your" song, you
are just expressing someone elses feelings
which is kind of lame. And if you can't write
your own lyrics, then goddamnit hire someone
who is slightly poetic and doesn't write the
same old shit with a different melody.
We are all tired of, to quote a great movie:
"14 years, all alone, on the phone"
You're in love, we know!
That doesn't mean you have to write
crappy music.

As for singer/songwriters, I'm kind of young,
so I would have to say that Tom McRae and
Ed Harcourt are my favorites, although I like
oldtimers like Bob Dylan and Simon and Garfunkel,
if S&G are considered singer/songwriters.

And oh yeah, as for people who say Avril is
a "rock and roll wildchild,"
newsflash:
Before she became famous she lived in a
small town and sang in the church choir.
Not that there's anything wrong with that,
I just don't consider churches to be very
"rock'n'roll"-ish.

[PoofBird]

Tom McRae and Ed Harcourt are excellent!


please listen to Hawksley Workman and Keith Caputo

[b_em]

I'm busily trying to set up a proprietary limited company in record time (like, 1 day for all the legals yehah), so I don't have time for a gloves off debate.

BUT COME ON!

A) What is this? A debate, or a 'throw in the names of a song writer' chat? I've not seen a whole lot of debating going on in here up to now. Which is why I now throw in item B) on my agenda.

B) Whilst you happily claim that all those splendid artists have changed the course of music, have you considered that the world as you see it may not be the world as it is seen by another. Michelle Branch?? I haven't even heard of the last one! I'm not some grumbling old granny thinking of how music used to be...I'm 21 and quite frankly I havent seen any real change in the world of pop music for many years.

The whole 'pop' music industry revolves around the saccharine wailings of very young people with little or no experience of the world at large. The vast majority start off having their songs written for them by the same old people who wrote the songs for the last wide-eyed beauty. At this stage I'll give a nod to Avril...she has been successful and really made something of herself. But has she actually stretched any boundaries? I dont believe she has.

At the end of the day, music comes down to a person or group of people creating something with
A) decent music, whether it is generated by guitars, piano, or synthesised

B) decent lyrics.... admittedly kurt cobain used to come out with some crazy stuff, but in its own way it made sense. At the very least you could say it was original.

c) a voice. Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the most memorable and most wonderful of bands / acts / singers have something special about their voice. Rob Thomas (Matchbox 20) has possibly the most incredible voice I've heard in ages...but look back and you see a crazy screaming Icelandic girl with some dire songs...but Bjork (sorry cant find an umlaut) made it as a singer because she has an amazing unworldly voice.

a charismatic front man (or woman) goes a long way too.

I've seen a few changes in music during my life...I saw the rise (and eventual fall) of what we termed 'Britpop'.. starting from the dodgy mancunian bands struggling to get by, to the whole movement being killed stone dead as soon as Oasis stayed at number one for too long. There's been changes in dance music...house, acid house, garage, speed garage...all the while gradually evolving. All the while in the background there's been some whinging woman wailing about her lost love / found love / unrequited love.

Maybe music is changing...I'd sincerely hope so. But I challenge the fact that it is being changed by the acts mentioned in the first post. Maybe they've changed your music....they havent changed mine.


*gauntlet thrown, retreat to a safe distance and await the flaming*

[Dr-Electro]

Simon & Garfunkel started writing original music at the tender age of fourteen. I laugh heartily at the thought of them being oldtimers, though. To me the oldtimers are the late great Buddy Holly, good old Chuck Berry, Holland-Dozier-Holland, Otis Williams, Pete Fountain, Muddy Waters, and all those other fools and fossils who actually gave today's music its roots.

The church choir bit is how Rock and Roll got started in the first place. The black kids who sang in the church choirs would hang out on street corners and sing for each other and the odd passerby. Some rich white people picked up on it by accident and suddenly Rock music is born.

Originally a mixture of Hillbilly music, Rhythm and Blues, black inspirationals, early jazz fusion, and plain streetcorner funk, Rock and Roll sprang to life more than half a century ago. Today's popular music gernres, other than true jazz, owe their beginnings to disc jockey Alan Freed coining the term Rock and Roll and making the music popular.

Damn! I am actually old enough to remember all that jive! Gimme my walkin' stick!

[Thoaar]

To honor em's call for debate here's the original question
Originally posted by Death
the question i pose to you now is: is this wave of singer songwriters the saviour of popular music or is it another phoney fad?
My answer:
Both. They are all rubber ducks fallen off a cargo ship in the ocean. Over time many ducks will disappear, but some will make the journey and wash upon the shores.

If you want an answer to the question, listen to the radio in 20 years. If you hear any of the songs still playing, they were saviors of some sort in their own right.

[Death]

very interesting post b_em. i enjoyed reading.

my only criticism would be 'Whilst you happily claim that all those splendid artists have changed the course of music' if you were refering to me i said popular music, and by popular music i mean the music that has been through the mtv filter and has then been heralded as the new best thing therby aiding their sterring of popular culture to benefit those in charge. as i think poofbird said it is just the tip of the iceberg maybe less, most definetly not music as a whole. and the origin of the thread for me was to see if any people think or dont think that this 'edgy new style' will produce artists that in 20 years time people will look back and declare that they defined a generation, like people are already saying about nirvana.

[PoofBird]

Nirvana defined my generation, no doubt about it.

and they never passed through the mtv filter. They pushed their way throught it, on their own accord.

people we'll look back on in twenty years?

DJ Shadow, the Neptunes, Radiohead, The Strokes (yes), Tool...

not always the most popular in their genre, but innovative and creative.

[Dr-Electro]

Put all of life's simple pleasures into a filter called "Art." Who defines each "Generation" of art? Is it usually the most popular "Artist" of the day? Not usually. It is the artist whose art has the most influence on succeeding generations combined with the higher critical acclaim of succeeding generations who has the most influence.

Think about it. Who defrines Classical music. Classical painting. Rennaisance art of all genres. Even the paintings on the walls of caves have their followers and imitators. What about people who blow tunes on wooden whistles? Who was their inspiration?

As goes life, so goes the microcosm that is "Popular" music. Nirvana were the innivators that others sought to emulate without copying. Who was before them? the Beatles? The Rolling Stones? The Crickets? The Comets? Fuzzy Newton?

Some of those names are as familiar to me as my own name. Others may scratch their heads and say, "What the devil is that old man on about?" The fact that we don't know them personally today has no bearing on their accumulated influence on succeeding generations of performers.

I personally couldn't name one single Nirvana track. That, coupled with the fact that I am older than them is meaningless to the rest of the music world. The identies of today's innovators may come as a shock to you all in twenty years time. Then again, you may already know them personally.

[PiesInTheory]

Good point dr. electro. I just hope this pop garbage (except michelle branch, I am quite fond of her) doesn't have bearing on our future generations, however I have noticed the things you don't think will carry on actually do. Sometimes stuff that isn't popular at the time has the greatest impact. But I agree a few bands from this generation will live on to become legends of music. Of course, just like the beatles, another pop act may follow suit, possibly a singer songwriter even. Fad music goes nowhere in the long run at least, but if any of the talented artists around shine for years to come we might be seeing more of them even in the distant future.