I take an opposite view. This is something that has been bothering me for quite some time.

Now, let's work from the basic principle that we have to have songwriters. Otherwise, the body of song would atrophy.

Similarly, we have to have singers who sing other people's songs. This spreads the songs (and the thoughts they might contain) fay more widely. It also ensures the survival of traditional song (although the way everybody seems to want to be a singer/songwriter these days, that could be at risk anyway).

The problem is that many of the songwriters are not very good. I sometimes have the feeling that it should be made law that songwriters can only sing their own songs after somebody else has sung them. This would have the winnowing effect we need.

It seems to me that too many songwriters are so wrapped up in themselves that they forget there is a real world our there. We then get stuck with people with very moderate song writing ability, poor diction (can't survive without a sound system, and intelligible even with that), and an overdose of angst, disembowelling themselves with a teaspoon.

If they had these songs judged by other people as good enough to sing, we would have far fewer, but much better songs (and singers).

The only saving grace that that most of them have is that they are capable with their instrument of choice.

There are many singer/songwriters whom I am prepared to listen to singing their own songs, and without their being sung yet by others, but they are a small and eminent minority - think of Paxton, Tawney, MacColl, Bogle, Dengate as examples just for a start. On the other hand, Dylan (genius though he might be) really needed Joan Baez and PP&M to get him popularity.

I was thinking of starting a thread on this topic, but I saw this and had to wade in.