why is it hard to write good music?

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Inspiration is essential.

Inspiration disappears. Motivation fades. Dedication's what you need

[spendthrift2]

Just listening to some techno/trance/house (e.g. Fatboy Slim/Crystal Method) and man... It seems like there's a lot more to it than I ever imagined before I tried to make something myself.

Great topic!

[Harry_HH]

This is tangential but interesting to me:

Lennon-McCartney were't that great writer in the first 3 years time (1959-61), when they wrote together (and separately). And if you listen to the Beatles Decca audition tapes, the band didn't sound that great.
But they were giving (thanks to Brian Esptein, George Martin, and babyboomers) time to develop - and that they did!
If I should name one thing, which separates L&M and the Beatles from million other bands, it is the DEVELOPMENT. To be able to develop yourself, you need, talent, of course, but you need a change, time and motivation.

They were still given all the time in the world late, White Album. And the 'great band' is a product of that and a product of George Martin. They weren't a great band in the sense I would apply a certain standard to, ever. Sometimes, it clicked in this major way. They decided not to be a live band in what, 1966?

They had potential before Ringo Starr but that's what put them over, a professional musician finally.

But McCartney in particular had all of this ability through talent and through osmosis from his father and environment, and speaking of the talent that is something almost no one in the world enjoys.

But here are people with a hot desire, which is another thing which is kind of just rare in the world. THAT is what you need, and the time and the willingness to WORK.

Motivation, enthusiasm, work, ambition, talent.
What facinates me, when I have studied Lennon-McCartney compositions, is the diversity of influences, which they had from the very beginning - from the black root music, jazz, music hall and musical, marching music, classical music. That diversity partly explains the proficiency of their music: it is really good, its not a co-incidence, that their music has survived decades. We can cut all the bullshit (which is, of course, one facinating aspect in the saga) and hype, but the music stays, and it IS good.
A couple of examples of the different, unexpected influences:

Listen to these pieces:

All my loving
(L&M, 1963)

Kathy’s Waltz, Dave Brubeck, 1959

Both the McCartney´s (mainly) A and B section have strongly infuenced by the Brubeck´s great little tune,
and if you listen the Kathy´s Waltz from 1.02, the resemblance is obvious.

And stil its different, McCartney has made his OWN song, partly from these ingredients.

And other example:

From me to you
L&M, 1963

Consider Yourself
Lionel Bart (1960) from the musical Oliver!



Beatles second hit single after the Please please me, From me to you, has got obvious influence for its B-section from the popular Oliver! B-section from the 1960.
My guess is, that this part is again McCartney´s work - although not connected with Jane Asher, when this piece was composed, Paul´s stay with the Dr. Asher and family in 1963-65 was one show of interest to"expand" his taste.
We must remember, that Paul (in addition to RIngo), was the one real working class representative in the Beatles (where Lennon belonged more to the middle class, although marketed later himself as a "working class hero).
E.g. Yesterday was written in the Ashers house - this song is strongly influenced by a famous jazz standard, and composed in the evening/night/morning, after Ashers played that jazz tune for Paul.
I return later to this song.

And there are serveral others, which shows that Lennon and McCartney really worked hard to be "craftsmen of the music" - which they become. The previous are examples of talent, not e.g. about "steeling tunes" - although the boys themselves said later in many occasions, that "they were the greatest nickers of all the time".

[dune_rave]

You need the pick of destiny to write good music

[enroe]

When I was studying music and history, something that stood out to me was the comparably insane lengths people of past decades would go to learn music at a high level. Leaving their home country to study the techniques of a composer and essentially become a "disciple," practicing long hours, writing volumes of letters and reflections on technical points... Today, people say "just f**k around, maybe you'll stumble on something you like."

It's no surprise people find music "difficult" to write. They don't know anything about it.

There's a lot truth in it.

Many do searching for DAWS, Plugins and the Magic-VST, but don't
learn the bascis of music. DAWs and Plugins are important, but
only after you nailed down your ideas and songs already.

EDIT: just to add...

Watch a video on dance music production, for example, and you'll see a shocking lack of understanding of even basic music theory . There's little effort in construction of pitch-based elements, melody or harmony. A lot of this music, despite being "written" down on the sequencer, is not the same as writing via music notation -- it's far more akin to an oral tradition.

One of the reasons society was able to intellectually advance was because people learned to read and write, which allows the opportunity for superior reflection and revision of ideas. By reverting back to oral tradition construction of music, necessarily the music has to be dumbed down because the tools for reading/writing/revision can't be utilized with any comparable degree of sophistication.

[Mike777]

...
One of the reasons society was able to intellectually advance was because people learned to read and write, which allows the opportunity for superior reflection and revision of ideas. By reverting back to oral tradition construction of music, necessarily the music has to be dumbed down because the tools for reading/writing/revision can't be utilized with any comparable degree of sophistication.

so true! But keep in mind even studying all the music books and learning the detailed craft of harmony, melody, and orchestration still may produce mediocre composition results. You'll be better at the writing craft for sure, but doesn't guarantee you'll write really good music.

I've visited some composers web sites who have the best orchestral sounds, self promoted claims of years of writing for this and that movie or tv production, and 'reviews' of high acclaim, etc and listened to their works and while the music well crafted, with carefully created melodies and harmonies, those well crafted melodies and harmonies I found quite boring.

In classical music there is an abundance of really boring works, and then the few masterpieces we like to listen to. Same with today's music. There is an abundance of formula/copy style mediocre works in all genres and then within each and every genre, some great works.

The music scene in Iceland right now is really something to follow, with great bands making some good music to my ears.

[Bombadil]

Ah... an interesting topic. Most of what I'd say has been said.

Woodshedding. Yep, done that for quite a few years. Too lazy now, but most of the chops come back after a week of purposeful playing.

One thing that hasn't really been mentioned, though it is part of the 'craft' aspect is to write, write, write. Ask any successful songwriter and they'll likely tell you that what they've released is only a small fraction of what they've actually composed. I've got some good songs, and I have some that will never, ever see the light of day. We're talking blackmail material, here, lol.

Discipline. To learn the instrument(s), DAW, music. Nowadays, DIYers have to wear a lot of hats. I find it a bit intimidating.

Talent; some things are just 'there.' It requires the above to bring it to its potential.

Another thing that many of the greats had was growing up in a musical household, with parents, siblings, and other extended family members being musicians. Nature or Nurture? Probably some of both.

Inspiration vs Craftmanship. Almost every writer I've seen asked about this subject brings it back to 'write, 'write, 'write.' 'If I wait for inspiration, I won't get a lot done.'

[Unaspected]

One thing that can be overlooked by people approaching music for the first time as something to be made in a computer is that performance is everything. Also, natural sounds have infinite variance within the constraints of tone. Imbuing digitally created signals with natural variance takes some work but that is more about sound quality than good music. Still, one probably wants good music to be the full package. It has to hold interest and reward the listener.

Good is highly subjective but I know what "good" means to me...

Exactly. All in the ear of the listener. My standards for whatever good music is will be different to the next person and so on.

But! If this is true, then isn't it impossible to know how much good music exists? I mean, you have to know the minds of, at minimum, of a statistically significant and representative sample, no?

I think that is absolutely true. As taste matures, the prospects would also increase. Maybe for some people they would diminish as well.

I definitely believe that people without much or any experience {even as a listener} cannot be relied upon for a standard. I think that _prospects diminishing_ is a sure sign of this, one actually finds out that there tends to be a higher standard than they knew about previously and they're maybe not going to be able to cut it. We see that frequently. As a pure hobby they may continue on just because trying is such a rich experience.
And with that I am not drawing a bright line between 'pro' and 'hobby'. For instance Frank Zappa considered his orchestral composing a hobby he supported by having 'an R&B band' and the stupid songs. Edgard Varèse relied upon a successful wife in the literature game and did next-to-nothing for a couple decades.

But with certain activity fostered by having this guarantee via software, increasingly high standards might be harder to come by. As once upon er time if you're going into studio you had to be able to play, and that had to be pretty reliable as time is money.

There is certainly a lot less quality control these days as availability of gear increases and costs go down. Going back to the user who mentioned that timing doesn't matter in that other thread - It matters when it costs money and time in the studio.

How easily some people are entertained and impressed and their level of self criticism also has to be factored in. What standards do they hold themselves against? I recall watching a short discussion in which it was suggested that people of low intelligence tend to have less self doubt - which makes sense. So it stands to reason that in the age of self publication, you're going to have to sort through a lot of painfully poor productions.


EDIT:

Inspiration is essential.

Inspiration disappears. Motivation fades. Dedication's what you need

That takes me back.

This place needs a like button for user posts.

[harryupbabble]

There are many people that already knows how to write great songs. It's not like they have forgotten how to? People like Paul McCartney. In his case it's probably because he is old and young people don't want old people writing songs that has lyrics like "well. she was just 17, if you know what I mean". Plus, Paul said something like "I don't want to write songs like I used to do with the Beatles". So he basically threw out a musical method that worked?

Songwriting must be a talent because none of the Beatles kids have any hits? It's not just about passing knowledge?
Songwriting must also be an activity that only freaks can excel at. It's freaky to be good at writing lyrics and be good at writing the right melodies for those lyrics too and vice versa? But I think even Paul McCartney struggled with the lyrics because he said something like "I wrote the music for Yesterday first, for a long time it wasn't called Yesterday it was called Scrambled Eggs".

The music to Greensleeves was supposedly written at least 200 years before the lyrics. And the same melody was used for another song called What "Child Is This" another couple of hundred years later.
My point is that if King Henry VIII is the lyricist for Greensleeves then he must have sucked at writing melodies because why would he use someone else's melodies? Typically. Like Elton John and Bernie Taupin. Like many people before the Beatles came along. Before the Beatles, songwriting duos were the norm?
According to the Beatles themselves Lennon and McCartney weren't really a duo. So yeah those two guys seem freaky. George Harrison wrote good songs too but who knows, maybe John And Paul and George Martin helped him. Maybe in reality, Paul is the only one freaky one in that bunch. A natural songwriter.

Sure, Jimmy Page wrote most of the lyrics and music for Led Zeppelin I but even he must have concluded "I'm not really good at writing lyrics" and let Robert Plant do it. So maybe Robert Plant is a freak too because he can write lyrics and he can find the right melodies for his lyrics, or vice versa.

So maybe Robert Smith is a freak. Bob Dylan too. David Bowie. Freddy Mercury, Neil Young, Ian Curtis, etc. Although there seems to be many freaky great songwriters, maybe their numbers are actually small if you look at it properly. So, freaky = rare? If I'm totally wrong, then never mind. I'm only guessing anyways. Haha. And pardon me if I only half dealt with the topic. Too many people ignoring the importance of lyrics. I would never remember the melody for Kodachrome if it weren't for the lyrics.

I was mostly in giggles when I wrote this post, it's mostly rehash and deja vu on my part, so please, in advance, relax. No offense meant. Just another "probably wrong" opinion expressed and open to proper corrections.

[Mike777]

...

Motivation, enthusiasm, work, ambition, talent.
What facinates me, when I have studied Lennon-McCartney compositions, is the diversity of influences, which they had from the very beginning - from the black root music, jazz, music hall and musical, marching music, classical music. That diversity partly explains the proficiency of their music: it is really good, its not a co-incidence, that their music has survived decades. We can cut all the bullshit (which is, of course, one facinating aspect in the saga) and hype, but the music stays, and it IS good.
A couple of examples of the different, unexpected influences:

Listen to these pieces:

All my loving
(L&M, 1963)

Kathy’s Waltz, Dave Brubeck, 1959

And other example:

From me to you
L&M, 1963

Consider Yourself
Lionel Bart (1960) from the musical Oliver!

And there are serveral others, which shows that Lennon and McCartney really worked hard to be "craftsmen of the music" - which they become. The previous are examples of talent, not e.g. about "steeling tunes" - although the boys themselves said later in many occasions, that "they were the greatest nickers of all the time".

wow had not known about these influences! but so apparent. Thx for those examples! Which brings up the point L&M didn't just create great songs out of thin air. As you first start learning how to play music, you learn from playing good music of others. That music will 'soak in' and come out later as you create on your own. The Beatles even as a group started off playing cover songs, not originals, and this period of time is not considered as important as it should be.

When I'm in a slump, and can't write anything decent, I know it's time to listen to great music of others.

[cron]

Just listening to some techno/trance/house (e.g. Fatboy Slim/Crystal Method) and man... It seems like there's a lot more to it than I ever imagined before I tried to make something myself.

Great topic!

This kind of links in to writing good 'genre' music. In techno, you can always tell when it's made by a dabbler vs someone who lives and breathes it. Writing good techno involves immersing yourself in it, going out dancing to it, getting to the point where you intuitively understand what works and why - both form and function.

I imagine it's broadly the same with any type of music. Writing good music involves listening to an awful lot of it.

[Unaspected]

Just listening to some techno/trance/house (e.g. Fatboy Slim/Crystal Method) and man... It seems like there's a lot more to it than I ever imagined before I tried to make something myself.

Great topic!

This kind of links in to writing good 'genre' music. In techno, you can always tell when it's made by a dabbler vs someone who lives and breathes it. Writing good techno involves immersing yourself in it, going out dancing to it, getting to the point where you intuitively understand what works and why - both form and function.

I imagine it's broadly the same with any type of music. Writing good music involves listening to an awful lot of it.

With all forms of music. You have to get out there and experience live music. Dance music especially has to be felt. It's very tribal. Might be lost on the sober though.

But indeed, music should be felt. It should mean something. That can definitely be lost on those who hear club music superficially, without being physically moved.

[vurt]

can we leave the beatles out of it. even just reading any negativity about them here is the death penalty

[Harry_HH]

can we leave the beatles out of it. even just reading any negativity about them here is the death penalty

No, but you can stay out, if you wish.

[vurt]

can we leave the beatles out of it. even just reading any negativity about them here is the death penalty

No, but you can stay out, if you wish.

impossible!