Singer/songwriters(again)

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:32 PM

1. I suppose I'm fortunate that 95% of traditional music leaves me cold, because about 95% of the rest of music does, too.

2. The most disappointing thing a songwriter can hear from anyone is, "It's not my type of music."

You see, I can't really see the difference between these statements, Peace. Surely the 95% percent that leaves you cold is "not your type of music"? This has nothing to do with genre, just to do with personal taste, just as the music that isn't my type of music "leaves me cold".

Frinstance, I've never really got Bruce Springsteen and his many approximate soundalikes. It leaves me cold/isn't my type of music - or whatever phrase you use to describe something that isn't your bag. Nowt personal, but life's too short and the budget's to small to try to pretend to equitably and dutifully like everything, regardless of whether it moves me. Mr Springsteen (for example), may believe, like Peace, that this means I am diminishing myself, denigrating the songwriter and throwing away the diamonds with the dirt. But what's the alternative? Lie about everything that doesn't do it for me in case anyone's feelings get hurt? You put it out there, you have to take the rough with the smooth. And 95% will always leave you cold... luckily, everyone's 5% is a little bit different.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:44 PM

Spleen Cringe- I am sure Peace will speak for himself, but your comment has moved me to respond.

I do not think the two statments you quoted are the same. If you are being honest, I would bet that 95% of traditional music probably leaves you cold as well. Traditional music is such a broad term. There is traditional Turkish music, traditional Chinese music, traditional Insert-Name-of-Country/Religion/Group-Here music. Can you honestly say that you enjoy ALL traditional music?

There is a huge difference between not liking a particular singer and not liking a "type of music". You might not like the Boss, but I hope you are not dismissing all singer-songwriters in the same sweeping statement.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:56 PM

Having been encouraged into folk clubs after hearing an album called "The Paul Simon Song Book", songwriters and folk musicians have always rubbed alongside each other.

The trouble with a lot of the modern crop of "songwriters" is that they make Leonard Cohen sound like Timmy Mallett. Also you do need a good melody to carry the song and all the good tunes seem to have been used up.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 03:57 PM

I won't enter this fray again except to opine that playing "Red River Valley" in a minor key, with a few transition chords thrown in, might well stupefy the young stud with the Ovation. Of course, if you sing it like Dana Delany did in "Tombstone," he'll probably die laughing.
Wait a minute. I just tried playing it in A minor - it doesn't work too well.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 04:04 PM

As a follow up to my post a couple back, on the other hand we listened to a young s/s over the weekend whose songs were average, but whose bits in between were very funny.

You can still sometimes get away with it if you have a way with people -if they decide they like you they are more inclined to listen to the song - it's all about communication.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 04:05 PM

...and I'll add, this thread has just been mentioned specifically on our local programme "Folkwaves".

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 04:20 PM

Wow, Ron, talk about missing the barn door by a mile.

I tend to talk about traditional music more than most types of music when I come onto Mudcat simply because there are plenty of other places I can visit to talk about my other predilections and obsessions should I want to...

I wasn't saying what I said in any kind of defence of traditional music. I was more thinking about how the "95% (potentially of anything, not just of traditional music, if you check out Peace's full quote) leaves me cold" and "it's not my type of music" are essentially two slightly different ways of making the same point. Yet one is apparently okay to say, whilst the other is apparently a deeply hurtful slur. The point I was trying to make is that I don't personally believe that either statement Peace put forward for consideration is problematic.

I also find it odd how these debates seem to polarise between traditional music on one hand and singer songwriter music on the other. When I check out my shelves, I'd say they were about 20% traditional (not just British); 20% folk rock, psych folk, nu folk etc (but definitely favouring groups rather than individual performers); 15% alt/experimental rock - again mainly groups: 10% Americana/alt. country (nearly all groups); 15% punk/indie/classic rock - all groups; 10% Indian classical and 10% other (western classical, world, jazz etc). Of people who can be classed as singer songwriters there are a few scattered around - Tom Waits, Bob Dylan, Kevin Coyne, Bob Pegg etc, but not many.

In fact, the constant theme is groups, because in my house, a decent arrangement or a bunch of people sparking off each other is king, whilst the loner usually remains lonely...

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 08:52 PM

There is a contrary to that with exapmles like Karine Polwart who left a band to pursue a career as an excellent songwriter.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:26 PM

I find a world of difference between someone saying they don't like a given song and someone saying they don't like trad music, or jazz, or whatever. Thus my 95% remark. Before I decide I don't like something, I listen to it first.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: DebC
Date: 20 Oct 08 - 10:36 PM

A great song is a great song, whether it is composed by someone we can name or whether it was written long ago by someone we can't.

If *I* like the song, I try to learn it and then sing it.

Debra Cowan

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 12:05 AM

Saw a bumper sticker tonight:

"If only people with closed minds had closed mouths."

Made me laugh.

Jerry

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 03:34 AM

OK..

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 03:36 AM

Ok...

Some types of music I tend not to like:

Chest-beating music
Soul-baring music
Syrupy music
Slick, over-produced music
Music that doesn't move or affect me.

That ok with y'all? Or proof of a closed mind and a mindless insulter of poor downtrodden musicians?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 04:36 AM

I find a world of difference between someone saying they don't like a given song and someone saying they don't like trad music, or jazz, or whatever. Thus my 95% remark. Before I decide I don't like something, I listen to it first.

My long held belief is that I'm not keen on soft rock ballads. This is based on long experience of being forced to listen to them and having a variety of reactions from nauseated to mildly irritated to reaching for the dial double quick. NOW... I could accept that soft rock ballads aren't really my bag and use my allotted time on earth to listen to music that moves me and has a resonance for me... or, in pursuit of some daft principle about fairness and not writing off entire genres I could concentrate my energy on listening to soft rock ballads, on the off chance that there might be a handful out there that would make this sorry and abject waste of my time worthwhile. D'you see what I'm getting at? I don't like that type of music as shorthand for in my experience, thus far, I have failed do enjoy any but an insignificant amount of music that could be lumped together and described in this particular way. Which is a bit clunky, to say the least...

By the way, as far as I can work out, singer-songwriter is not a genre of music, it's statement of intent, a job description, a territorial marker and an outward expression of an inner state that the person who thus labels themselves wants to convey. In my humble opinion. There are plenty of writers of songs who also sing them themselves who would probably barf at the prospect of being described as a singer songwriter. There's a visible miasma of portentiousness and self importance around the descriptor that puts this ex-punk in mind of that dreary 1970s cult of Californication...

All of which means I have created for myself a gaping loophole. I can continue to not be particularly enamoured of the whole singer songwriter concept whilst enjoying some music by singers who write their own songs ... and, in truth, wishing that more of them would do a Neil Young and transcend the bland intropection by getting themselves a Crazy Horse to play with...

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Banjiman
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 04:48 AM

Surely "singer/songwriter" is not a style of music but just describes someone who sings songs that they write.....whatever the genre?

"A great song is a great song, whether it is composed by someone we can name or whether it was written long ago by someone we can't." Ah, common sense, that's bound to be shot down then.

Paul

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,LJW
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 05:13 AM

I'm often asked why I don't write songs. There are still hundreds of fantastic songs I want to learn and perform before I try to pen something which is never gonna come close to Bob Dylan's weakest efforts; why should I bother?

Singer-songwriters who only sing their own songs face a great problem; for every great song written there's a hundred that are crap. One guy comes to mind - he's written over 300 songs - but there's only one of them that I sing.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 05:28 AM

"A great song is a great song, whether it is composed by someone we can name or whether it was written long ago by someone we can't."

Sadly it can also be ruined by rubbish production, an awful arrangement, a dire singing voice and so on and so forth. And for every great song there are considerably more that aren't - old and new, but particularly new, and particularly now we have the situation where every half-arsed bedroom fantasist can peddle their wares on Myspace and Youtube. There is wheat amongst the chaff, and some of it is seriously good, but to get to it there's a shitload of chaff to wade through...

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 08:10 AM

'the person who thus labels themselves' versus 'who would probably barf at the prospect of being described as a singer songwriter'.

This indicates to me that, for you, the opinion of the music is not based on the label but who is doing the labeling. Please keep in mind that people in other countries and other cultures may not have that sensitivity to words as you, or even the same interpretations. While I've heard the title spit out by traddie Americans, I've never once witnessed this emotional reaction in Canada. It's also very hard for me to understand why any sane person would have an emotional reaction because of a job description.

Please understand that a person 'baring their soul' about their dislike of a title is every bit as objectionable to me as a singer/writer 'baring their soul' about love or pain is to them. The differences (other than the fact some people like the song are) the songwriter has a melody and a rhythm, and at the end, they stop.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 12:09 PM

When it's just a job description it's fine. It's when it's this hallowed thing that's mentioned in hushed, revered tones as something far superior and more sensitive and goddamned special than yer run-of-the-mill songsmith that I tend to cringe. I wonder if what I recoil from is a particular form of music industry marketing and labelling associated with the whole singer-songwriter concept than anything implicit in individual performers. After all, the majority of my record collection is music composed by the people who perform it (usually in as part of a band, though, rather than on their own or with a few session musicians) but very few of them are singer songwriters. In the UK the expression is usually preceded by a word like "sensitive" or "soul searching" or suchlike, which doesn't exactly help the cause.

Oh, and me, I've heard of science and don't actually have a soul to bare. Though why me having an opinion, Jeri, is objectionable and you having opinion apparently isn't, is beyond my simple powers of understanding.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 12:14 PM

"It's when it's this hallowed thing that's mentioned in hushed, revered tones as something far superior and more sensitive and goddamned special than yer run-of-the-mill songsmith that I tend to cringe."

Yeah, Nige. If I were to ever hear that, it would probably give me the creeps too.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 12:42 PM

Jeri, you obviously haven't had the pleasure of the British music press, then!

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 02:30 PM

No, I haven't. Not since the 80s when Alan Taylor was played next to the Watersons on Radio 2. I did have a subscription to a British magazine for a while, and noted the sneering hatred they seemed to have for singer/songwriters, as if they were personally hurt by them. They also came across as hating all things American, possibly as a result of us not joining them in their level of loathing.

People tend to toss off 'singer/songwriter' here with absolutely no concern for the poor sensitive soul who may be helpless to stop having a completely out of proportion knee-jerk reaction. A few people may state their aversion to singer/songwriters, except the ones they like, but they don't go on and on.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 21 Oct 08 - 02:39 PM

"A great song is a great song, whether it is composed by someone we can name or whether it was written long ago by someone we can't."

"Sadly it can also be ruined by rubbish production, an awful arrangement, a dire singing voice and so on and so forth."

A great song is never ruined in my opinion.
It is still a great song even if you hear me butchering it.
Dont blame the song for any of those other 'problems'

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 03:54 PM

"People tend to toss off 'singer/songwriter' here"
Hmmmph
And all I ever get is polite applause sometimes.
The amasingly purile and childish singer song whinger Tim....
Sorry.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 04:46 PM

so if a person uses only the venacular/patois for lyrics and then simply mouths the words for the hearing impaired,

would they be considered a 'lipsync-er/slang-writer' ?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 23 Oct 08 - 05:30 PM

I still think that most of the singer/songwriters you hear in a folk club are better than the c**p you get on commercial radio.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 01:07 PM

LOL
Traditional LIp Sync?
OR that awful made up modern stuff?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: bankley
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 02:01 PM

well, TL, that depends on the crowd.... you just play the appropriate tracks and make sure you move your lips a bit out of sync like those old Japanese movies.... gets 'em everytime...

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 04:10 PM

Ahhhhh!
SO its all down to the supply of beer?

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Nicholas Waller
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 04:47 PM

Al Stewart is a singer-songwriter whose oeuvre covers a pretty broad field and he (and people like him) can't be pigeon-holed as purely navel-gazing in his subject matter

Yes, he did a lot of the regular s-s personal relationship stuff (particularly Love Chronicles, an 18-minute examination of his love-life from the age of 6 and famous for being a first deployment of the popular sex term "fucking" in the album sleeve printed lyrics).

But he's also done a bunch of historical songs on subjects like the Versailles Treaty, the German-Russian front in WW2, the 500 BC Carthaginian navigator Hanno and, relevantly enough for today, the optimistic world just before the 1929 crash in Lindy Comes to Town:

Every day is better than the one before it
If I see a raincloud then I'll just ignore it
Everybody says it'll get much better yet
It's 1927 and my whole life lies ahead.

As well as other material - a whole album with wine as a theme (Down in the Cellar) - he's done songs that mix the personal and the historical, as in Fying Sorcery referencing Amy Johnson images:

With your photographs of Kitty Hawk
And the bi-planes on your wall
You were always Amy Johnson
From the time that you were small.
No schoolroom kept you grounded
While your thoughts could get away
You were taking off in Tiger Moths,
Your wings against the brush-strokes of day.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM

""I don't think criticizing "singer-songwriting" as a genre is either "whining" or "bitching" and I'm quite able to say what I don't like about it, as well as what I do. The point of this thread is to discuss, like every other thread here. Why shouldn't the music of singer-songwriters be criticized, as long as its civil and not below the belt?""

No problem with people criticising my music. If you listen to one or more of my songs, and react by saying you don't like them, or they are crap, FINE. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

If, however, you hear that I am a singer/songwriter, and without knowing any more about me than those two words, you make derisive, sniffy, comments about singer/songwhiners broadcasting the contents of their diaries, and say that's not your kind of music, then I am afraid that you are not only a bigot, but a rather stupid bigot.

It is hardly the action of a rational being to take a dislike to anything with NO knowledge of what that thing is.

When you are told that someone is a singer/songwriter, you know only that he/she is a person who sings songs he/she has composed. You haven't a clue what genre of music is involved, nor whether the songs are good or bad. YOU HAVE NO LOGICAL BASIS FOR CRITICISM, and any criticism you DO make, says more about YOUR ignorance than about the other person's talent, or lack thereof.

When, and only when, you have heard the music, you will be in a position to make meaningful criticism of its quality, and the singing ability of the author.

Don T.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Acorn4
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 09:14 PM

I'll agree with Al Stewart - I think "Zero She Flies" is one on the best albums ever released.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Tim Leaning
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 06:52 AM

And I agree with Don.
But that dont mean i dont agree re Al Stewart
Just never heard any

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:42 AM

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM
Date: 25 Oct 08 - 05:57 PM

""I don't think criticizing "singer-songwriting" as a genre is either "whining" or "bitching" and I'm quite able to say what I don't like about it, as well as what I do. The point of this thread is to discuss, like every other thread here. Why shouldn't the music of singer-songwriters be criticized, as long as its civil and not below the belt?""

"No problem with people criticising my music. If you listen to one or more of my songs, and react by saying you don't like them, or they are crap, FINE. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

If, however, you hear that I am a singer/songwriter, and without knowing any more about me than those two words, you make derisive, sniffy, comments about singer/songwhiners broadcasting the contents of their diaries, and say that's not your kind of music, then I am afraid that you are not only a bigot, but a rather stupid bigot. [...]"

Fair enough, but have you actually read my postings? I think you're responding to some things others have said.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Jayto
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:33 AM

I don't agree about the Red River Valley thing. When it comes to this style of music what captures a crowd is their ability to connect. In order to connect they have to be able to relate it personally. ALot of people can't relate to Red River Valley. The same way alot of people can't connect with black and white movies. Don't stone me here on this one lol. I am expecting alot of people to disagree with me. I know personally I am seeing a big movement around here (Ky) with younger crowds going for singer/songwriters. I am also seeing a big movement back to folk music in general with younger crowds. It is not the stuff alot of people would think was drawing them back though. It is not the beautiful ballads and feel good lyrics that is found in alot of the folk songs. Red River Valley would not hold water with these guys. Like it or not it wouldn't. I remember singing that song in music class in grade school. That is where I first heard it and that is my point. To alot of them it is like going out and talking about long division or reminiscing 3rd grade. How cool can it be in thier mines if Mrs. So and So the music instructor in 3rd grade taught it to them? That is the mind set. I love Utah and don't mean this disrespectfully toward him at all. What would have happened (if he was in Ky or Tennessee)is he would have busted out Red River Valley and the younger guy would have just looked at him and said "yeah we used to sing that in school. Do you know any Steve Earle or Doc Watson?". The old songs that are hanging with these kids are the darker songs about hard times. This is what they are clinging to. I jam with musicians all the time. ALot of them are in thier late teens and early 20's and these are the songs they are playing and wanting to learn. St. James Infirmary is a VERY popular one. I have taught so many people this song I have lost count. That is just in the last 4 months at that. I mean these musicians came up listening to metal,rap,alt country, and punk. They are all pretty aggresive music forms. So lyrically that is what I see them drifting toward. The folk songs that are rougher in content and are less likely to be taught in school. I think the whole music education thing is great but in some ways it takes it's toll on some very good songs. If they are singing them in music class most of the time that is going to throw them into that realm that is a death sentence with younger adults. That is the realm of being deemed "uncool". Noone wants to conjure memories of thier music teacher in grade school when they perform a song. I know I might get slammed on this post but it is just my observance.
cya
JT

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: matt milton
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:39 AM

In London, where I live, there are plenty of clubs that demonstrate things aren't quite so polarized as young/old, singersongwriter/trad. Clubs such as the Magpie's Nest, Lantern Society, Easycome Acoustic club and the Goose is Out.

At Lantern Soc and Easycome, it's probably more of a slant towards original singer-songwriter material – but with the unmistakeable authenticity of people who do actually understand traditional songs and have listened to a hell of a lot of them.

At Magpie's and Goose there's more of a mix of trad and new.

"Snigger-songwriter" is a horrible term – it just sounds snide and childish.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 11:42 AM

And now for something completely different.

Anybody here subscribe to the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary?

I am curious to know if they have an etymology for "singer-songwriter".

There is an interesting discussion of the term in Wikipedia that briefly alludes to the use of the term pejoratively but gives no details.

I think I remember a time when singer-songwriter was value-neutral.

Russ (Permanent GUEST and eternal PEDANT)

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Joe_F
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:22 PM

Russ: I don't have the online OED, but I have the CD-ROM (version 3.1, 2004). The compound is not there at all.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Wrinkles
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:57 PM

I think that somewhere, someone, has made the error that "singer/songwriter" has something to do with folk music.

The term means nothing more that the individual writes and performs mostly their own songs. Many of the Greats of Jazz, Soul, and R&B were singer/songwriters but neither accoustic or folkies!

True, on the accoustic front, folk clubs and singer's groups, have, and still do, give many singer/songwriters their first platform. But if you log on to MySpace and do a music search under "singer/songwriter" you'll get far more rap artists than guys whose roots are based in folk.

As said before; It defines the person not their music. I suspect the modern singer/songwriter rap artist would just pee their pants laughing at the old folkie's uncredited music rather than be in awe ;-)

Barbara

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 09:44 PM

""Fair enough, but have you actually read my postings? I think you're responding to some things others have said.""

Piers, there was no intention on my part to offend you, and my response was based purely on the fact that you referred to singer/songwriting as a genre. IT IS NOT!

It is in fact a description of a group of people who have a part in EVERY musical genre.

Therefore my comment about stereotyping me, based on that as the only thing you know about me.

I don't think that stereotype is defensible.

With respect
Don T.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:33 PM

Like it or not, there is a singer-songwriter genre.

Like it or not, it is associated with folk music.   

While neither "fact" are true based on a number of educated reasons, it still exists.

The term became popular in the 1990's.   I remember a former music director at the station entered a new CD into our library, and under the GENRE he wrote "SSW". It took me about 10 minutes to realize that it was not a listing of a sexual preference but a term for singer-songwriter. The term was being slung about by the emerging "Americana" market for composers/performers of that so-called musical style. Suddenly, artists that I had been following for years were now catagorized under this brand. It was an attempt to differentiate the contemporary artists that had evolved out of the folk music scene.

While many on Mudcat enjoy an Ayn Rand view of the world, nothing is gained through a semantic discourse that will convince no one.   The bottom line - is is what is is. Perception is reality.   Deal with it.

Re-read Utah's statment to the Folk Alliance. He was not trying to push traditional music and favor "unauthored" folk song. He was simply explaining the craft of songwriting and the fact that a song will belong to everyone who sings it and be remembered more than the writer. Simple lyrics and a catch will make a song memorable. "Red River Valley" was probably written in the 1870's and the forgotten author never received credit.   The song did go through some changes as it spread, but in all probability, it was the product of a singer-songwriter.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:34 PM

that should have been -

it is what it is.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Mark Ross
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:43 PM

Thank you Ron.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Piers Plowman
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 05:35 AM

From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

"Piers, there was no intention on my part to offend you, and my response was based purely on the fact that you referred to singer/songwriting as a genre. IT IS NOT!

It is in fact a description of a group of people who have a part in EVERY musical genre.

Therefore my comment about stereotyping me, based on that as the only thing you know about me.

I don't think that stereotype is defensible."

Perhaps the term "singer-songwriter" shouldn't be used as a label to refer to a genre, but I think it is. I like some songs by some singer-songwriters and dislike others. The label tends to make me think "music I probably won't like". For example, if I see a poster advertising a concert that reads: "Melancholy folk ballads about the impossibility of love accompanied by his/her own sensitive guitar accompaniment", I think "well, I think I'll give that miss". Just like "Indie garage punk with contemporary hip-hop beats with special guest DJ Milque Toast" doesn't make me want to rush out and buy tickets.

I think the music that's marketed under the label "singer-songwriters" is often a kind of light rock or pop. Very popular in the 1970s and , like many things that were "in", eventually became very "out". I think Joni Mitchell is very good at what she does; I just have come to find it extremely irritating.

I quite understand if singer-songwriters are annoyed by the stereotype and the negative prejudices against them. I think part of the problem is the quality of a lot of music that's marketed under the label. It's a shame if good musicians who work hard at what they do suffer from this negative stereotype. However, there's clearly an audience for singer-songwriters and under the name "Liedermaching" (an artificial word meaning "song-making" --- "maching" is a mixture of the German word "machen" and the English "making") it even seems to be kind of trendy in Germany.

I admire the ability of a people to write words and music. I can compose, but I have a terrible time with words.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 08:28 AM

I used to (when it was first coined) do that in the 60's and early 70's. Then I got into writing them for other voices. From there, I went to writing for a particular voice, and now I'm composing more of larger works. I did a soundtrack for a film, in which incorporated several styles, and genres,..and did it very well and authentic to their particular style, if I do say.....(clears throat)....What is important to remember, is that music is a communication, and to communicate, with accuracy, just exactly what is is you wish to convey, so the listener, participates to some degree in your experience. To merely write, as to fulfill some notion of 'how you fancy yourself', or wish to be seen, is rather self indulgent, and that comes across too (whether you think so, or not).

Here's a link, to a fantastic song, in where the composer wrote for another voice,...the words and feeling conveyed say so much more, just in what is implied. The composer is David Downes, also the pianist, seen in the video. Singer is Lisa Kelly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh-q8RNLr3Q

If ever there was a song that conveyed an inner desire, for a song, from a composer, this is it! Enjoy!!

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:17 AM

Half time...

Ok, so some people use singer-songwriter as a value neutral term to describe anyone in any genre of music who has ever sung a song they wrote themselves, ever.

Some people use it to describe a specific genre of music that either came into being in the 1970s or the 1990s, depending on who's doing the telling, that tends to the introspective.

Clearly it can't be both.

The first is so broad as to be entirely meaningless, in that it covers every song ever sung unless done as a cover or unless the identity of the author is lost. The second, the one I always understood it to mean, offends all those who consider themselves to be singer songwriters but who don't consider themselves to be sensitive or introspective (a new genre of crass, insensitive singer songwriters maybe? Joking. Joking!).

If I can briefly reprise my mild spat with Jeri, above (who I'm sure is far more charming than his/her posts make him/her sound!), when I was referring to the UK music press, I was talking about the mysterious obsession and reverence they generally have for the singer songwriter genre (in this case), rather than referring to the one magazine that generally doesn't cover singer songwriters (definition two) as they are outside its stated musical remit. Still didn't stop them recently putting Devon Sproule on the cover though, thus reminding us that breaking your own rules in a good cause is perfectly okay.

Not that it really matters. It's only music. The soundtrack to life rather than life itself.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:31 AM

"Some people use it to describe a specific genre of music that either came into being in the 1970s or the 1990s, depending on who's doing the telling, that tends to the introspective."

Yes, it did "come into being" during the 1970's. Artists like James Taylor, Harry Chapin, Joni Mitchell and others were described as such - but it was more likely to hear them called "folk rock" during that time period.   During the 1990's, that was replaced by "singer-songwriter.

As to the "sensitive" and "introspective" tag - that is merely a stereotype. Yes, songwriters will tend to write more personal songs - but many traditional songs are also intensely personal so to add that description to all singer-songwriters is equally incorrect.

It is amazing- where once we had discussions on "what is folk", I can see it changing to "what is singer-songwriter". At the end of the day, as Spleen Cring points out - it really doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:38 AM

Don't take my last 'e' Ron!

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:40 AM

I see singer/songwriter as a job description. It does not describe my "style". Neither is singer/songwriting particularly associated with any genre, in my view. Hey, I have written songs in a number of different styles, and some of them not even I would call "folk"! The world of rock, nu-rock, heavy metal, C&W, blues, reggae, salsa etc is full of singer/songwriters. Sure, folk has some too - why wouldn't it. Even classical music has them, though they 'd call them "composers", the flash gits.

There's nothing special to it. Some people paint. Some are plumbers. Some write songs and then sing them to get them heard. And in all of those walks of life, some are good at it and some are bad. And probably more realistically, all are both good and bad at it at different times. The better ones are good more often, that's all.

To snigger at singer/songwriters, or to defend them unreservedly, is akin to doing the same for plumbers, taxi drivers, doctors or solicitors.

It's variously a job, a hobby or a need, like an itch. The "sensitivity" they are accused of is part of the profile - they have to be sensitive to surroundings, antennae at the ready, if they are to write about more than their diary. But don't mistake it for wimpishness, they can kick you in the b****cks as well as the next person.

And they like a pat on the back from time to time.

So do plumbers.

Subject: RE: Singer/songwriters(again)
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 11:40 AM

And sometimes they will ramble just to get a

100

in.