arrangement vs. songwriting (?)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

As someone who doesn't understand music theory, I am asking the following somewhat complicated (to me, anyway) question: is the "arrangement" of a song "at one" with the "songwriting"? In other words, when one speaks of a well-written song, is one considering the arrangement of the song as well? If not, what, then, is the definition of songcraft? How much of the "arrangement" can be considered part of the "songwriting?" Are harmony vocals part of the "song" or are they just "performance"? How about orchestration?

This may be a strange question, but I ask because know many songs that wouldn't be nearly as good without the harmony vocals, rhythm guitar parts, orchestral back-up tracks, etc. that go with them. These songs would be boring if just sung with an acoustic guitar. Does this mean that the songs are bad? Or- were they written with the arrangement that goes with them in mind?

An example: I remember once reading that the acoustic version of "Smell Like Teen Spirit" performed by some female vocalist (perhaps Sinead?) was "evidence" as per Kobain's "songwriting skills." I remember thinking , regarding this acoustic version, that the verses still sounded good, but the bridge n' chorus sounded dull and repetitive when striped of the Nirvana sound. Does this mean that, per my sensibilities, that the verses were written well but the chorus was merely *performed* well?

What about you? Is "arrangement" or pure "songwriting" more important to you as a listener? I'm beginning to think that the arrangement is more important to me. Perhaps some of you will understand this question. I, unfortunately, do not.

― Blake, Thursday, 28 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think the classic definition of a songwriter is the person who writes the melody, chords and words. Anything beyond that falls under arrangement, in the traditional way of things.

It was probably the Tori Amos version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" that you're thinking of, and I agree with your assessment. That does seem a good example of a song that was written with a certain arrangement in mind, that it would have all the space on the verses and big distortion on the chorus.

I think it was Leiber & Stoller who said, "We don't write songs, we write records." Meaning that they always wrote with a specific singer and sound in mind (they often produced their own material). It seems natural that this style of songwriting would develop and grow as recordings continue to supplant performance. Records are things in themselves, not just documents of a performance, etc., so the art of the arrangement is growing ever more important, surpassing songwriting in many cases (recent Stereolab.)

Songs develop and change (think of all the mutating folk songs out there), but a record is forever. At least until Kid Loco or whatever remixer gets a hold of it.

I'm cool with this trend, arrangement over songwriting. As long as it sounds good and moves me, I could give a damn if it works on an acoustic.

― Mark, Thursday, 28 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Allow me to turn up and, in a schematic and cartoonish way, take as diametrically opposite position as I can manage to Mark Pitchfork's last paragraph. The fact that people are saying things like that only feeds the desire of folk like me to stick up for The Song.

Blake: your question is good, and important, and you asked it in admirable detail. The short answer is that both A and S are important - at least to Making A Record. You and I and everyone else (?) know that, anyway; it's uncontroversial. But slightly more contentious are:

a) people saying, Sod the song, arrangements are where it's at now; Destiny's Stereo Sugabollox blah blah. As I have said before, this argument does not interest me because these people's music does not interest me, any more than mine interests them.

b) more interesting, more difficult, is the fine line you are trying so diligently to trace: where does S end and A begin? And - whatever polarizing things I and others might say - this is actually a difficult question. My short answer - a pragmatic, provisional one, I suppose is: the Song = the chords, the melody and the words. ie. (possibly) what can be written down on a score (sheet music, or whatever you want to call it). This already complicates matters for at least a couple of reasons.

1) scores etc include other things too - time signatures, for instance; are rhythms part of a song? I don't know. There is doubtless something absurdly 'scholastic' about me sitting down and trying to work out a Yes or No answer to that question.

2) I can't read music anymore. So who am I trying to convince about scores?

The issue (as you've already indicated) is tangled and vexed, anyway. If I write a song where a backing vocal is crucial, is that part of The Song? Most of the time, I'd say: No. But there might be some instances (Beach Boys) where it seemed that b/vox were so integral - so 'primary', if you like - to the song that you couldn't relegate them to that secondary (!) thing The Arrangement. How about riffs? Is the opening riff of 'What Difference Does It Make?' a part of the song or not? I don't really know. (What difference does it make? I don't know.)

What I can see is that one - notably, I - could tangle oneself up in knots on this stuff, and that it's all a bit Angels on the Head of a Pin. That suggests to me that we don't need hard-and-fast absolute definitions and boundaries, just a pragmatic sense of roughly what we're getting at when we use the words. (That might, possibly, go for all kinds of other debates too.)

Still, you asked a question which asked us to choose - perhaps in a deliberately schematic and silly way. And if I have to choose between S and A, then I'll go for Song, if only cos nobody else will nowadays, because a lot of people don't quite seem to *think in terms of Songs* anymore. And I do, oh, I do.

― the pinefox, Thursday, 28 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Mark and pfox: thank you for these terrific thoughts. I think I agree with both of you. People like Stereolab and MVB are probably most interesting because of their arrangements and production techniques: the "recording" as opposed to "the song" is what is of interest with those artists. Perhaps the "best" music combines truly great pure songwriting with carefully considered arrangements, like Pet Sounds (although I might argue with the songwriting on a couple of those numbers, even though I consider it a "greatest album of all time" album).

Here's another question then, and I'm not just being goofy here, how do I identify "great songwriting" from just "a song I really like?" Can this question be answered? Is it just a matter of taste? Were the Stone Roses great songwriters? "Meresy Paradise" sure sounds like a great pure song to me. And "Elephant Stone." "Fool's Gold?" Hmmmm... I not as sure about that one...

I want to know so that I can say to my friends that "you should listen to this band cause they sound like your pals in Matchbox 20, only they are better songwriters." A wierd goal, perhaps, but it would help me indirectly if Jeff Mangum, David Gedge, and Rivers Cuomo e.g. sold more records than Third Eye Blind and the Offspring (or whoever sells a lot of records now).

― Blake, Thursday, 28 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Sorry- That's "Mersey Paradise." I don't want the British folks on this forum to think I'm an idiot any more than I want you guys to know that I'm just a fat bald guy from Kentucky. Whoops...

― Blake, Thursday, 28 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

music doesn't just float in the ether, it hink, it requires instruments to bring it out. scientific instruments, the music always bears the properties of the science. songwriting can't possibly pure in that it's independent of it's arrangement - any such attempts are a clear path to bland traditionalism. so, i'd side with the idea that songs aren't good, bad or possible in such a pure sense, that it's a record, or a performance, and that themost interesting will use that as an integral part.

― matthew james, Thursday, 28 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

so what happened in the case of the Other Two from the Smiths suing Morrissey / Marr for royalties - were their basslines and rhythms seen as an integral part of the songwriting? (Cos they won the case didn't they?)

(preparing legal brief and anticipating 66% jump in royalty payments)

― Alasdair, Friday, 29 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think that case supports my view. Whatever the judges may have said, there is a clear difference between the Songs written by M&M and the Records made so admirably by all of them together.

― the pinefox, Friday, 29 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think the case they brought was for a redistribution of recording royalties and other (non-publishing) income. They had previously signed contracts that gave them far smaller percentages than those Marr & Morrissey were getting, and they argued quite reasonably that this was unfair.

― David, Friday, 29 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Personally, I'm an "arrangement" kind of guy. Though, of course, I still very respect and appreciate a well written song.

This comes up, for me, when I think of Brian Wilson vs. The Beatles. The Beatles (without the help of George Martin) would be great pop/rock songwriters. Whereas, Brian was a great arranger/producer, but not as great a "pure/straight" (verse-chorus-verse) songwriter as Lennon/McCartney. And my side is to lean towards Brian and his arranging/composing/producing talents to The Beatles great songwriting skills (again, you have to minus Martin from that Beatles equation just as you have to minus the lyricts Brian worked with in his prime on 'Pet Sounds' and the 'Smile' era). Of course, one could even say that it's not fair to have 2 against 1, as well. But, for the sake of this post ("let it be").

that reminds me, where is all the Beatles vs. Beach Boys mud slinging? i want to see some mud being swung, dog done it...

― michael g. breece, Sunday, 1 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Perchance most of the people on this board are too young to know that the Beatles and the Beach Boys were actually different groups.

I love discussing Beatles vs. Beach Boys, though. I agree with your assessment: Beatles = better songwriters, B. Wilson = better arranger/"composer." Pet Sounds = the best whole album either of the two groups ever made, but Beatles have more total mass of great songs and really good albums (but no one miesterwork compared to Pet Sounds, IMO).

The big question, now that we agree on that, is, of course:

John vs. Paul?

(A new thread, perhaps? Has it already been a thread here? Guess I should check.)

― Blake, Monday, 2 July 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.