Hallelujah

[Golden Smoghead]

Several years ago I had arguments with people here that most songs written currently (as in the last 10 years or so) weren't that good, because the craft of songwriting has gone downhill. ...

I'm going to have to disagree. In particular, I think Steve Earle, Lucinda Williams, and Bruce Springsteen are examples of contemporary songwriters who are great artisans, approach it like the craft it is, and take it seriously. You don't necessarily have to LIKE everything they do, but to say that the craft has gone downhill is something I just don't agree with.

 

However, in other parts of your post you allude to the industry -- to me, the industry is distinct from the question of whether or not there are great songwriters out there plugging away at it. Also I am curious as to what you would consider a "better era" for songwriting, it seems to me that songwriters have always been either off on their own, or else pushed into assembly-line type settings with a few rare exceptions (like Springsteen for example).

[jff]

I'm going to have to disagree. In particular, I think Steve Earle, Lucinda Williams, and Bruce Springsteen are examples of contemporary songwriters who are great artisans, approach it like the craft it is, and take it seriously.

 

Those folks were also "contemporary" songwriters before the quality of songwriting supposedly took a dive, so I would argue that those examples are void. Surely there are some songwriters who have emerged in the last 10 years who are roughly on the level of someone like Springsteen, but are they as common as they were in previous decades? Anyone on this site could name dozens of legendary songwriters from the '60s or '70s, but how many songwriters from the past decade can we honestly say will be held up as shining examples 20, 30 or 40 years from now?

[Sunken mountain]

I don't know the tribute album, but it's on Buckley's Grace, which for me is indispensable.

Absolutely.

[Golden Smoghead]

Those folks were also "contemporary" songwriters before the quality of songwriting supposedly took a dive, so I would argue that those examples are void. Surely there are some songwriters who have emerged in the last 10 years who are roughly on the level of someone like Springsteen, but are they as common as they were in previous decades? Anyone on this site could name dozens of legendary songwriters from the '60s or '70s, but how many songwriters from the past decade can we honestly say will be held up as shining examples 20, 30 or 40 years from now?

I don't buy this at all. Guitar Town came out in 1986, but I think Earle did his best work within the last ten years (The Mountain, Jerusalem, The Revolution Starts now). I'd say the same for Lucinda Williams and even Tom Waits, but I suppose those are judgment calls / personal taste. So when you say "songwriters from the last decade" I guess you mean "songwriters who only showed up within the last ten years." I dunno if that's really fair. Yes, some songwriters were brilliant as they stepped from the womb (Dylan, Springsteen, Cohen, Nick Drake), but I would say that with a few exceptions my favorite songs have been written by folks in their 30s and 40s. Blaze Foley, Townes Van Zandt, John Prine, Steve Earle, Emmylou Harris, hell even Willie Nelson all really aged well as songwriters IMHO.

 

So it seems to me you're making (very ironically) the same mistake as the record companies. I think the real geniuses are often late bloomers, and almost-never do their best work right out of the gate. Let's see what Gillian Welch, M Ward, [edit to add: Kanye West, Ben Harper] and their cohorts are up to in another 10 years before we say they're a cut below their predecessors.

[LouieB]

I don't know the tribute album, but it's on Buckley's Grace, which for me is indispensable.

Well check it out..it won't hurt I promise....

 

 

Those folks were also "contemporary" songwriters before the quality of songwriting supposedly took a dive, so I would argue that those examples are void. Surely there are some songwriters who have emerged in the last 10 years who are roughly on the level of someone like Springsteen, but are they as common as they were in previous decades? Anyone on this site could name dozens of legendary songwriters from the '60s or '70s, but how many songwriters from the past decade can we honestly say will be held up as shining examples 20, 30 or 40 years from now?

Thanks for supporting me jff.....My goodness the people we are talking about here are my age fer cryin out loud....Springsteen, Waits, Lucinda Williams, even Steve Earle are in their 50s, with Earle being the youngest at nearly 50 if not quite that. I won't say that these folks are not still writing great songs (actually some of them aren't, but that is a different and slightly irrelevent argument here...) All of these folks came up during a time of incredible songwriting strength and added to that.

 

I knew I would get this one started. I am mostly talking about the strum and mumble crowd, much of which I like and many of which I own albums of. These folks ain't writing songs others are performing (certainly Springsteen, Waits, Williams, Earle, etc. are widely covered by others...) and frankly not other strum and mumbles are covering others artists of the same school, if they choose to cover someone it is of the older generation such as Dylan, Neil Young, (Springsteen, Waits, Williams, VanZandt, etc.)

 

When a truely comtemporary coverable song comes along (I am sure we can find one...maybe), it is an event, rather than what used to be a daily occurence in the music business. Even though folks like Amy Winehouse or what's her name Allen (see I already forgot) write some pretty tuneful songs, no one is rushing to cover them. (edit...name me the artists who are covering Kanye West and Ben Harper or even M. Ward.)

 

(This is where I throw in a plug for the book, the Rise and Fall of Popular Music.......although dated now, the point he makes is even stronger than it was when it was written a few years back.....the music industry as a whole is failing miserably on all levels, including songwriting...)

 

LouieB

[Golden Smoghead]

Louie I usually agree with everything you say on here, and I like your taste in music immensely.

 

However your cover grief here is kinda unfounded. I am not kidding, check for yourself, half of Gillian Welch's wikipedia entry is a list of all the people who have covered her songs. She is 41 years old. And it's not like it's all one song that everyone liked. List includes:

 

Jimmy Buffet

Emmylou Harris

Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

Trisha Yearwood

Kathy Mattea

Allison Kraus

Joan Baez

Glen Phillips (Toad the Wet Sprocket dude)

 

Etc. And Ben Harper not getting more covers is a crying shame if you ask me. Kanye, correct, is almost un-coverable since his songs are so intensely personal, however his melodies and references are surely going to crop up elsewhere as samples or in references (hip-hop writ large doesn't generally accept straight-covers anyway so much as remixes, samples etc).

 

And FWIW, fuck the strum-and-mumblers, fuck the hipsters, fuck Arcade Fire and the Fiery Furnaces and Ghostland Observatory and every other piece of trendy tripe bullshit that self-flagellating English majors jerk off to just because of an elistist cool factor. But "music is in decline" has been wrong every single time so far, so you need some real compelling evidence if you are going to claim it is happening now. People have been decrying the decline of music ever since that simplistic, 5-note-melody-writing asshole Bach showed up. And yet, somehow, there is always more great music coming out in all kinds of genres.

 

I suspect the best is yet to come for American music, by the way. The democratization of lo-fi recording hasn't yet borne its sweetest fruit, but I suspect the next 10 or 15 years are going to uncover a treasure trove of great music from people who were otherwise going to just play it for themselves, fellow-traveling musicians, and their friends. Yes, most of that music should have stayed in people's bedrooms and porches. But it makes a lot of sense that the widespread ability of people to record and distribute their own music without having to abandon the rest of life will uncover a few real gems. Some of the best music ever recovered was played by people down in the Delta on front porches and in small rooms with 20 people. I believe it's an illusion of the recording / music-mass-marketing industry that great music created by tremendously talented normal people (truly "folk" music) ever ceased to be created. I hope the fall of the recording industry and its hype machines will allow the masses to decide what's good music and songwriting.

 

Even if it's something you and I don't like. But please God, don't let it be Ghostland Observatory.

[bobbob1313]

And FWIW, fuck the strum-and-mumblers, fuck the hipsters, fuck Arcade Fire and the Fiery Furnaces and Ghostland Observatory and every other piece of trendy tripe bullshit that self-flagellating English majors jerk off to just because of an elistist cool factor.

 

This is a hell of a post. Get over yourself, man.

[LouieB]

Yea, I knew if I brought this up someone would come up with someone. Gillian Welsh is a pretty good example (although at 41 she isn't exactly young.) But look at the geezers on the list of folks covering her.....yikes....with the exception of Glen Phillips (not a kid anymore either) these guys are also older than me. Well maybe Allison Krauss isn't but she plays bluegrass, not indie rock, a type of music that has one of the oldest fan bases ever.

 

Jimmy Buffet

Emmylou Harris

Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

Trisha Yearwood

Kathy Mattea

Allison Kraus

Joan Baez

Glen Phillips (Toad the Wet Sprocket dude)

 

Incidently I don't think music in general is in decline. When I posted up in another thread that your average musician is far better (in terms of ability and technique) now than 40 years ago I was also derided as an idiot.....but in both cases I maintain these things are true. One of my personnal favorite strum and mumble musicians (and just about everyone else here too) is Andrew Bird, who's playing is incredible and who's records are amazing, but few if any of his songs (he makes beautiful music however) are going to inspire me to pick up a guitar and learn to play it. That's exactly what Blowin in the Wind and If I had a Hammer did half a century ago with legions of guitar players. There are currently more talented and profficient players (and singers) now than there were 40 or 50 years ago. Just listen to the records.

 

(And back to the thread, nearly all of them sing better than Leonard Cohen did even in his hey-day. (although once again...not all) Had he written obscure and illiterate songs he would not have been famous.)

 

(Oh and just for the record...I don't play guitar, which is lucky because I can't sing worth a damn either..)

 

LouieB

[JerseyMike]

but few artists today think of their creations as anything other than short term fodder for their next album.

 

I highly disagree with this statement, respectfully. We can take that argument and go back to The Beatles, The Byrds, the Stones, etc. and find evidence that not every song was a well thought out and crafted jewel. On the flip-side we could look at much of the music from today and find evidence that many artist strive to make each song the best it could be.

 

When we talk about Leonard Cohen as a songwriter, it is unfair to bring anybody else's writing in comparison with him. He was already a well-respected author and great writer before he began penning and performing his songs. He sits on the mountaintop alone, arguably.

 

Oh and just for the record...I don't play guitar, which is lucky because I can't sing worth a damn either..)

 

Perhaps you are the next Leonard Cohen!

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

I think the shift might have to do with fragmentation of the target audience. I have a sense that a lot of songwriters are writing for the few hundred thousand people that they hope will buy their album, rather than hoping that a great song will get them radio play.

[LouieB]

I highly disagree with this statement, respectfully. We can take that argument and go back to The Beatles, The Byrds, the Stones, etc. and find evidence that not every song was a well thought out and crafted jewel. On the flip-side we could look at much of the music from today and find evidence that many artist strive to make each song the best it could be.

 

When we talk about Leonard Cohen as a songwriter, it is unfair to bring anybody else's writing in comparison with him. He was already a well-respected author and great writer before he began penning and performing his songs. He sits on the mountaintop alone, arguably.

 

Perhaps you are the next Leonard Cohen!

That is also true....no doubt about the filler on albums (listen to any of the early (or even later) Beach Boys albums and there is some rather strange and mediocre stuff on there. So never mind.....and for the record you really don't want me singing period.

 

 

I think the shift might have to do with fragmentation of the target audience. I have a sense that a lot of songwriters are writing for the few hundred thousand people that they hope will buy their album, rather than hoping that a great song will get them radio play.

This is also possibly true.

 

LouieB

[jff]

So when you say "songwriters from the last decade" I guess you mean "songwriters who only showed up within the last ten years." I dunno if that's really fair.

 

That is what I meant. Perhaps it's not fair to compare the '60s or '70s to the present. My point is, in those earler eras there were numerous songwriters who were (correctly) regarded as songwriters on the highest level within a short time of them coming on the scene. It certainly didn't take decades. I haven't seen that happening for the last decade or more. I don't know what all the factors are that are contributing to that, but the record industry is only partially to blame. If I were assigning blame, I'd probably place more blame on MTV and VH1 than any of the major labels. It seems like with the number of respected music magazines and independant labels we have these days there'd be just as many legends in the making today has there were in the '60s. I don't know of many young songwriters working today whose songs will be sung 40 years from now. I might be inclined to say that is not because of the quality of the songwriting has decreased, but because the lyrical content so often lacks discernable meaning in modern music.

 

 

 

 

 

When I posted up in another thread that your average musician is far better (in terms of ability and technique) now than 40 years ago I was also derided as an idiot

LouieB

 

I was the one who disagreed with you. I still disagree, but I apologize if it came across as "deriding you as an idiot". I definitely don't think you're an idiot.

[LouieB]

That is what I meant. Perhaps it's not fair to compare the '60s or '70s to the present. My point is, in those earler eras there were numerous songwriters who were (correctly) regarded as songwriters on the highest level within a short time of them coming on the scene. It certainly didn't take decades. I haven't seen that happening for the last decade or more. I don't know what all the factors are that are contributing to that, but the record industry is only partially to blame. If I were assigning blame, I'd probably place more blame on MTV and VH1 than any of the major labels. It seems like with the number of respected music magazines and independant labels we have these days there'd be just as many legends in the making today has there were in the '60s. I don't know of many young songwriters working today whose songs will be sung 40 years from now. I might be inclined to say that is not because of the quality of the songwriting has decreased, but because the lyrical content so often lacks discernable meaning in modern music.

 

I was the one who disagreed with you. I still disagree, but I apologize if it came across as "deriding you as an idiot". I definitely don't think you're an idiot.

Its okay..I was just giving you some shit...but actually I am correct about this. Musicians are constantly getting more skilled and proficient and able to play in a far greater range of styles and greater skill than ever before. Now that does NOT mean that those older players were able to play with less feeling or less effectiveness for whatever type of music they played, just that most had less access to a broader musical education (this is a different issue than learning music in school, which is another whole convo in and of itself.)

 

However I totally agree with your first statement so we aren't really at odds on this one at all. If there is one thing more recent songwriters have a problem with it is lyrics. But even bad lyrics won't stop a song that has other merits. We know songs that have catchy tunes and stupid words. A catchy tune overrides stupid lyrics every time, but a non-catchy tune and stupid or obscure lyrics isn't going to fire anyone's interest.

 

I kind of copped out this morning because it was early and I didn't have the time or energy to continue the discussion at the moment (and frankly it is a discussion not an argument.) There was a time when songwriting was concerned with getting across a story or strong emotion. Sadly the last place any kind of overall songwriting that involves a story is concerned remains is mostly in the country arena, which has so many other problems that is is laughable; but the folks grinding out songs in that genre are still trying to write melody and lyrics that people can relate to. Most of the rest of the genres out there including indie rock have relegated lyrics in particular and in some cases melody to secondary status, replacing it with overall sound. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something that keeps the song from being picked up by another artist. When a song comes along that people actually can relate to , it does in fact catch fire. There are some contemporary instances of this...most notably in the last few years, Crazy by Gnarls Barkley, which not only crossed over to all audiences, but also was picked up and covered by other artists just for fun (if not profit.) I don't really know that the problem is, I am serious about this. I don't think it is because songwriters are trying less, because clearly more songs are being written now than ever before. I think part of the problem is that there are less song-singers than ever before, so the market for a good song that is sung by someone who's job is simply to sing is fairly small (hence the country artist who picks up songs written by others, but not rock artists who want to write their own material.), unlike in the 60s and 70-s when singers looked for songs all the time. Without someone like Judy Collins picking up a Leonard Cohen's songs, even Cohen might have remained in obscurity. Much the same as Baez did for Dylan and EmmyLou Harris did for Rodney Crowell.

 

Most people here weren't around when Cohen first came to prominence, but his first audience was from people singing his songs, not Cohen singing them himself. Literally dozens of singers sang "Susanne" and "Bird on a Wire" and that created a market for the originals, not the other way around, even though Columbia at the time thought enough of Cohen's limited vocal range to give him a contract. But he never sold even a fraction of the records Judy Collins and others did of his songs. Forty years on Cohen is a bit of a cult star and Judy Collins is a forgotten singer. So it goes.

 

Contemporary songwriters either need to find a really good voice or a bunch of really catchy and compelling songs that once again can be sang by kids strumming guitars around a campfire or dorm room.

 

LouieB

[jff]

Its okay..I was just giving you some shit...but actually I am correct about this. Musicians are constantly getting more skilled and proficient and able to play in a far greater range of styles and greater skill than ever before. Now that does NOT mean that those older players were able to play with less feeling or less effectiveness for whatever type of music they played, just that most had less access to a broader musical education (this is a different issue than learning music in school, which is another whole convo in and of itself.)

 

LouieB

 

I think that's only theoretically true.

 

All the other stuff you wrote is basically a more elequent version of what I was trying to say.

[LouieB]

I think that's only theoretically true.

 

All the other stuff you wrote is basically a more elequent version of what I was trying to say.

Yea, I can live with that...I would never trade the feeling and experience that previous generations of musicians have expressed in their music for technique and prowess.

 

Actually after going on and on regarding this subject I think that I finally got to my point in a round about way. Again most of this is partially stolen from the book the Rise and Fall of Popular Music (the parts about how songs got to the market and how those avenues don't exist any longer), but specifically I doubt that today most people sit around playing guitar and singing, which was something that we did alot of back in the day. Things have simply changed and moved on so that experiencing music is more an individual experience, with more people listening to their own music via iPods and other ways rather than getting together to play and sing. So what people want out of their music experience is different than it used to be. I could be very wrong about this, since it has been quite a few years since I sat around with anyone, old or young and sang folk type material (that includes stuff like the Band, etc.). Do people still do this?

 

LouieB

[jff]

I could be very wrong about this, since it has been quite a few years since I sat around with anyone, old or young and sang folk type material (that includes stuff like the Band, etc.). Do people still do this?

 

LouieB

 

I don't know about now, but that still went on when I was in my teens and 20s. Granted, I'm 35 and that was WAY before Ipods, so who knows what kids do now.

 

Maybe Guitar Hero or Rock band is today's equivalent.

[JerseyMike]

I could be very wrong about this, since it has been quite a few years since I sat around with anyone, old or young and sang folk type material (that includes stuff like the Band, etc.). Do people still do this?

 

LouieB

 

Its funny you bought this up, because I was just having this discussion with a friend.

 

I find myself in these situations quite a bit, a bunch of musicians with their instruments drinking wine, beer and getting high, singing along and passing the guitars around. Unfortunately, music is so segmented today that there is not that well of song that we can all dip into. If the singers and songwriters from the '60's were going back and dipping into the well that was filled with Robert Johnson, Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Pete Seeger and traditional folk songs, then todays well is filled with Bob Dylan, the Beatles and the occasional Grateful Dead song.

Todays listener (I am 32) is so bound by the confines of whatever genre they've chosen that it has built walls of ignorance around them. And those genres have sub-genres and they continue to sub-divide. So a bluegrass fan will have intimate knowledge of Bill Monroe, Flatts and Scruggs and even the Yonder Mountain String band, but almost no knowledge or love for Hank Williams. They don't realize that those walls are not boundaries produced by music, but walls produced by the mass-sellers of music who needed a way to keep records organized in stores.

[LouieB]

I don't know about now, but that still went on when I was in my teens and 20s. Granted, I'm 35 and that was WAY before Ipods, so who knows what kids do now.

Old timer.... I would hope it is still happening, but I would bet that even when it does those folks are singing the oldies....

 

 

Its funny you bought this up, because I was just having this discussion with a friend.

 

I find myself in these situations quite a bit, a bunch of musicians with their instruments drinking wine, beer and getting high, singing along and passing the guitars around. Unfortunately, music is so segmented today that there is not that well of song that we can all dip into. If the singers and songwriters from the '60's were going back and dipping into the well that was filled with Robert Johnson, Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Pete Seeger and traditional folk songs, then todays well is filled with Bob Dylan, the Beatles and the occasional Grateful Dead song.

Todays listener (I am 32) is so bound by the confines of whatever genre they've chosen that it has built walls of ignorance around them. And those genres have sub-genres and they continue to sub-divide. So a bluegrass fan will have intimate knowledge of Bill Monroe, Flatts and Scruggs and even the Yonder Mountain String band, but almost no knowledge or love for Hank Williams. They don't realize that those walls are not boundaries produced by music, but walls produced by the mass-sellers of music who needed a way to keep records organized in stores.

Once again the songs most people even have today in common are the same ones we (baby boomers) had in common in our youth. That included the Beatles as well as older folk songs, rock favorites, etc. The other day I put on a Jules Shear LP and realized that even as recently as the 1980s there were singers covering songs, but that even in the last 20 years the desire to find coverable material has reduced. Oh sure sometimes someone gets someone else to write a song for them and they do that, but rarely do singers cover a song that wasn't. Think of all the great writers who made huge livings that way (Jimmy Webb, Paul Simon, the young Jackson Browne, Eric Anderson, even up to the aforementioned Jules Shear..the list goes on and on), but somehow this no longer is the case.

 

We now have a common set of songs that people can relate to, but most if not all of those go back at least 20 or more years. Again, this saddens me more than anything.

 

LouieB

[Sir Stewart]

Its funny you bought this up, because I was just having this discussion with a friend.

 

I find myself in these situations quite a bit, a bunch of musicians with their instruments drinking wine, beer and getting high, singing along and passing the guitars around. Unfortunately, music is so segmented today that there is not that well of song that we can all dip into. If the singers and songwriters from the '60's were going back and dipping into the well that was filled with Robert Johnson, Woody Guthrie, Hank Williams, Pete Seeger and traditional folk songs, then todays well is filled with Bob Dylan, the Beatles and the occasional Grateful Dead song.

Todays listener (I am 32) is so bound by the confines of whatever genre they've chosen that it has built walls of ignorance around them. And those genres have sub-genres and they continue to sub-divide. So a bluegrass fan will have intimate knowledge of Bill Monroe, Flatts and Scruggs and even the Yonder Mountain String band, but almost no knowledge or love for Hank Williams. They don't realize that those walls are not boundaries produced by music, but walls produced by the mass-sellers of music who needed a way to keep records organized in stores.

Filkers do.

[jff]

Old timer.... I would hope it is still happening, but I would bet that even when it does those folks are singing the oldies....

 

 

LouieB

 

That's what me and my friends used to sing/play. Usually it was a lot more playing than singing (hardly anyone wanted to sing), but the tunes were things like House of the Rising Sun, some Zeppelin tunes, Grateful Dead, etc. Probably the most current songs we played were Violent Femmes, or something, which even then was over 10 years old.

[LouieB]

That's something I would like to see...a Violent Femmes singalong (I have nightmares,

thinking about getting back together with you.......)

 

LouieB

[jff]

That's something I would like to see...a Violent Femmes singalong (I have nightmares,

thinking about getting back together with you.......)

 

LouieB

 

Uh, I guess it'd be more accurate to say the Violent Femmes song was more of a band practice than a singalong, so maybe it doesn't count.

[LouieB]

Uh, I guess it'd be more accurate to say the Violent Femmes song was more of a band practice than a singalong, so maybe it doesn't count.

Yea, I suppose their songs aren't really inspirational campfire type songs.... It s a hell of a funny thought though...

 

LouieB

[jff]

Yea, I suppose their songs aren't really inspirational campfire type songs.... It s a hell of a funny thought though...

 

LouieB

 

I was on a high school marching band trip to Florida in 1987 or '88 and I remember the girls in the drill team singing some of the tunes from that first Violent Femmes album on the bus.

 

I'm not sure how I got to be on the bus with the drill team rather than the woodwind section, but...

[Kalle]

I've just got some crappy seats for Leonard Cohen's show in Kitchener ye ye!