What Makes a Good Song?

[BONES]

I listen to a lot of music and wonder why anyone bothers to make it, much less feels the need to share it with the world. This particularly struck me listening to the Vince Clarke & Martin Gore album from 2012. Those guys can do anything they feel like, so why choose to do minimalist, ancient-sounding techno? It struck me as a strange choice.

So, anyway, for me the most important thing a good song needs is power. Power is a combination of energy and attitude. Energy is the most important factor but it's not usually enough on it's own. e.g. The Pointer Sisters' hits all have bags of energy, so I don't hate them, but I don't exactly like them, either. OTOH, Icona Pop's I Love it has both energy and attitude and I quite like it.

Energy is easy with fast songs but much harder with slower material, where the energy needs to come from tension in the music or some kind of build-up and release. My favourite songs all have slow verses and massive choruses at double-tempo. Strangely, though, I've never written a song like that. Dunno why.

Attitude is harder to define. e.g. I don't like Heavy Metal at all, yet it mostly wreaks of attitude. I think maybe I find it hard to take seriously. The other thing is that it tends towards "dark" and "evil", where "anger" works better for me. Minor keys help, too, but attitude is the hardest aspect for me to nail down. I know it when I hear it but that's about it, really.

Good songs also need vocals to anchor my interest. Instrumental music can't generally hold my attention for more than a minute or so. I keep waiting for the song to start, especially with a lot of different Tarnce styles, and lose interest when it doesn't.

Rhythm matters, melody doesn't. Again, my favourite songs all have strong, driving rhythms which, of course, is where the energy usually comes from. OTOH, whilst I enjoy a good melody as much as the next idiot, it's not something I look for.

Anyway, I think it helps your songwriting to analyse what it is you like and don't like about the music you listen to but it isn't something I've ever really put into words before.

[Jafo]

Good food for thought -- thanks!

[kritikon]

I have no idea what makes a good song. Don't care - it either grabs me or it doesn't and it generally doesn't stick to any genre or style. Mostly I listen to dub or techno-ish kinda things but I have all sorts in the car to sing along to. Even at home, I'll put anything on the sounds good, and I generally have no idea why I like it apart from it has some sort of tuneful hook...but then it might be a repetitive riff that grabs me that is not the typical definition of tuneful. E.g. I really like Chris Isaaks - Don't Want to Fall In Love and I hate country with a passion. I absolutely adore Adele's Set Fire to the Rain yet I generally hate female diva songs. Similarly with Robbie Williams - Angels, I mean that's boy-band pop schmaltz but it's f**king epic and almost makes me cry. Yet I'll trance out to Age of Love, Pitch Black deep dub, Ibiza chill-out techno flamenco stuff. FFS I even like ZZ Top occasionally - bereft of any kind of street cred but just now and then, the odd tune is genius. Well Dressed man - it's formulaic but it just works.

It doesn't need to have a vibe - no aggression, no power, no fixed style. TBH analysing music that way is a pointless exercise IMO. It either works and you like it or it doesn't. Recently I've been driving home from work with classical numbers on the CD and I can get off on Flight of the Valkyries or Tchaikovsky's uber-works.
Why do they make it? I really don't give a f**k. I either like it or I don't - none of my business why they make it. They can do it for money, passion, to get into hot chicks pants...I couldn't care less. It's either musical and I like it...or I don't. Why do you like the colour blue but not mauve? Don't care, don't need to know. Possibly even not healthy to want to know. Navel-gazing.

Music is one of those joys of life. It just is or it isn't. Analysing it into any kind of depth to me hints of...a hole in one's life, not being happy with life. You like a piece of music or you don't. Good music can make you feel like a god, and it doesn't need any particular style/genre/format/feeling to do that. I know of people that go into ecstasy with Barry Manilow...not for me, but good on them for loving it so much.

[BONES]

Yeah, but you don't really make much music, do you? You're more of a noodler. Could your lack of direction in that department perhaps be a consequence of not really knowing what makes the music you like tick?

Good music can make you feel like a god, and it doesn't need any particular style/genre/format/feeling to do that.

Maybe not for you but for me it definitely does matter what genre/format/feeling. Honestly, very little music affects me deeply in and of itself but experiencing it live usually amplifies any effect. No tears, though, unless I am belting it out at the top of my lungs (usually in the car or at a gig).

[kritikon]

TBH I've been making more actual music recently. It's likely a consequence of 2 things as far as I can make out:
1. Getting away from sw as much as I can, which makes the actual music-making way more fun and interesting. Obvs the mixing/FX/DAW is sw, but creating and playing - hw all the way. Plugins kill any and every inspiration I have. I now know that and won't even try and make myself use shitty sw synths apart from the odd gem like impOSCar. I strongly suspect why in the past I haven't finished too much music is precisely because I have to use so much sw to get it done. I make music/melody/hooks/interesting sounds quite easily. It slows down and grinds to a halt as soon as the sw takes ovver and I have to get into dicking around in the DAW.
2. Actively deciding to not give a f**k about any style/genre and just making what I know I like, instead of trying to stick to some kind of formula or format. If I want doof doof Germanic techno with a buddhist monk singing over the top - I do it for the sake of it. Surprised me that I got several tracks done by just doing exactly what I want. Ignoring what makes any genre tick has helped me actually make music that would fit into genres a lot more easily. Strange - I didn't expect it.

I can take forever if I sit down and actively try and start out making a dub track (one of my favourite genres). I get bogged down into trying to make a bassline that fits the genre, a precisely counter-syncopated beat, mega time consuming automation of the off beat stabs and trying to make them sound authentically guitary. BUT - if I just sit down to play a few spacey echoey sounds that make me trip out, bang a few bass notes in without thinking, make synth stabs instead of guitar shite - I come up with better dub tracks before I know it.

Formats are a restriction. They constrict. Knowing what makes them tick is likely going to do the opposite and reduce inspiration and music-making IMO. Certainly has done for me. If you want to sound like someone else...follow the crowd. Possibly you do actually want to sound like someone else? You seem to have a fairly restricted set of likes and a huge amount of dislikes. All I know is this time around I've just ignored most rules I learnt and dicked around to please solely myself and...I make more music as a result.

[BONES]

I now know that and won't even try and make myself use shitty sw synths apart from the odd gem like impOSCar. I strongly suspect why in the past I haven't finished too much music is precisely because I have to use so much sw to get it done. I make music/melody/hooks/interesting sounds quite easily.

I find this fascinating. Why do you think it's the way it is for you? Because I much prefer working with software - it's so much more immediate and controllable for me. What do you use to play your softsynths? I play everything, software or hardware, with one of my MPE controllers, either something from Roli or my Erae Touch. They work so much better with software - no dicking around with MIDI channels or any of that shit, just click on the instrument channel in my host and start playing. I can play the keyboard with my left hand while I tweak parameters with the mouse, using my right hand, which feels every bit as tactile as tweaking a physical knob to me.

2. Actively deciding to not give a f**k about any style/genre and just making what I know I like, instead of trying to stick to some kind of formula or format.

We don't do any of that, either. We just make what we want to hear. We don't even care if our influences come close enough to the surface that it ends up sounding like someone else, as long as we're happy with the result. After last night's band meeting, where we were looking at what we want to put on our next album, I think it will be more diverse than ever. Although I did have to put my foot down over a couple of Synthwave pieces my bandmate had been working on.

Ignoring what makes any genre tick has helped me actually make music that would fit into genres a lot more easily. Strange - I didn't expect it.

We worry about genre after we're finished, it doesn't really come into the process at all. To me, genre is all about marketing, getting people to take an interest in what you have done.

I can take forever if I sit down and actively try and start out making a dub track (one of my favourite genres). I get bogged down into trying to make a bassline that fits the genre, a precisely counter-syncopated beat, mega time consuming automation of the off beat stabs and trying to make them sound authentically guitary. BUT - if I just sit down to play a few spacey echoey sounds that make me trip out, bang a few bass notes in without thinking, make synth stabs instead of guitar shite - I come up with better dub tracks before I know it.

That's pretty much how we work, too. We do what we like and it turns out how it turns out. When you do that for a long enough period, you start to understand what it is that makes you like a song. It starts to become obvious.

It's not genre-specific and it doesn't have to restrict what you do or how you work, but it can make it easier to identify and fix a problem in an arrangement or with a sound. That latter thing is something I deal with a lot because my bandmate tends to use a lot of the same sounds over and over, so I spend a fair amount of my time finding different sounds that do the job as well or better.

[fese]

A good song has a strong melody that people still whistle 50 years later.

Although that is perhaps more the definition of a successful song. Everything else is just personal taste and opinion, you cannot define objectively what a good song or good music is.

[donkey tugger]

A good song has a strong melody that people still whistle 50 years later.

I'd probably widen that not to just melody, but that it has something which sets it apart be it a melody, riff, memorable lyric, chord progression, evokes a time/mood etc etc.

I love both Marvin Gaye and Slayer, but I'll wager not for exactly the same reasons...

[BONES]

Really? I can't say I am able to find anything worthwhile in either's work. But I do dislike them for different reasons, so we at least have that in common.

A good song has a strong melody that people still whistle 50 years later.

As I said, melody is completely unimportant to me.

Everything else is just personal taste and opinion, you cannot define objectively what a good song or good music is.

Nobody is trying to, we're just talking about the subject, learning from each other's perspective.

[donkey tugger]

Really? I can't say I am able to find anything worthwhile in either's work. But I do dislike them for different reasons, so we at least have that in common.

I often think that many of the Motown classics would have fared better if they had been done in a sinthesiser goth stylee (not hardware of course) in the penal colony rather than in Detroit.

[BONES]

I had to go and see a band that does that shit last week. A mate's in it and he invited me along. They had a five piece brass section and everything. It was tragic.

[donkey tugger]

They should have used sinthesiser (not hardware, naturally).

[revvy]

Nm

[Michael L]

Energy is easy with fast songs but much harder with slower material, where the energy needs to come from tension in the music or some kind of build-up and release.
- - -
Anyway, I think it helps your songwriting to analyse what it is you like and don't like about the music you listen to but it isn't something I've ever really put into words before.

Chambers' Brothers, Time Has Come Today is a good example of a slow song with energy & tension. Strong groove, almost no melody. I admire their inventiveness.

My preference is for motifs with interesting groove, vocal timbre, and surprising harmonic intervals. ELO's Mr Blue Sky immediately comes to mind. Terrific vocal technique.

My favourite song of all time is Philip Glass/ Laurie Anderson/ Linda Ronstadt's Forgetting. It is only groove and harmonic intervals. Zero melody, stratospheric vocals.

[vurt]

Really? I can't say I am able to find anything worthwhile in either's work. But I do dislike them for different reasons, so we at least have that in common.

I often think that many of the Motown classics would have fared better if they had been done in a sinthesiser goth stylee (not hardware of course) in the penal colony rather than in Detroit.

i know it was northern soul (wigan pier) not motown, but tainted love worked pretty well