Should groups always write their own songs?

This thread inspired by the fine example of the Detroit Cobras, who only do (old, obscure) cover versions - and hence don't record any rub...

it's actually QUITE STRANGE that there aren't a FEW more groups who subcontract out the songwriting, er, chores — it's one of the unspoken subtexts behind pop vs indie, and all those questions about "control"

i'm not a fan of the "social programming" theory of pop consumption, but if i wanted an example of a widely held belief which can ONLY BE EXPLAINED by social programming, i'd reach for "you write your own songs = you are no puppet!!"

actually first i'd reach for "all pop groups and artists have a limited creative lifespan" (which was known as "planned obsolescence" when ppl were attacking the auto industry)

A lot of pop acts, Pop Idols, Boy Bands etc. don't write their own songs. You'd think that this would lead to them picking and choosing great songs from great freelance songwriters wouldn't you?

I wonder what goes wrong.

Actually, I guess what goes wrong is money.

If you write your own material you get songwriting royalties, and if someone else covers your song you get money from that too.

Maybe it's more lucrative to do a bland rip off of something some-one else has done, and own 100% of it, than just cover it and own half.

Groups should write their own songs if they are good at writing songs. If they're not very good at writing songs then they should get someone else to write them.

It depends if you see groups as performers (eg Elvis), or as a creative unit. I tend towards the latter...with the odd imaginative cover version now & again.

A lot of pop acts, Pop Idols, Boy Bands etc. don't write their own songs. You'd think that this would lead to them picking and choosing great songs from great freelance songwriters wouldn't you? I wonder what goes wrong.

These artists aren't allowed to write the songs, but nor are they allowed to pick the songs. That's a&r and management's job. Management may, of course, lobby for a few artist-written (or co- written) tracks on an album because they may stand to get a cut of the artist's publishing income.

short form response: NO.

there was another thread where i claimed - like andrew - that it's pretty impossible for most people (and therefore read: most people in bands) to write 12 good songs a year. it got bogged down because of the pinefox and others strict definition of "songwriter" in an age where that don't impress me much.

i still think it's pretty impossible.

Groups should always write their own songs, regardless of songwriting talent.

oy vey.

This _Britney_ album says you're lying, Jeff.

"Groups should write their own songs if they are good at writing songs. If they're not very good at writing songs then they should get someone else to write them"

I would change that to:

Groups should write their own songs if they are good at writing songs. If they're not very good at writing songs then they should stop crowding the airwaves and do something else, they aren't bringing anything to the table.

covers work well, I think, when a band brings the sound they have developed with their songs to an occasional other song, making an interesting interpretation of this song

I don't really care if popstars or groups write their own songs. I wonder if they want to, but keep having these songs pushed on them. Everyone wants a certain amount of creativity in what they do, why wouldn't they? I'd like to see what they can come up with.

True, true, Jeff. But, @ the same time, it would be GREAT if popular folks making a living on other people's songs were able to properly judge whether following their muse @ the expense of other people's input is a smart thing to do, both for themselves and their fans. The Monkees, for instance, threw off the yoke *ahem* of Don Kirshner to do their own thang, and seemed to come off rather well (especially in hindsight). Britney, on the other hand, involved herself in the creation of her 3rd album (to what degree, I'm not sure), and ended up w/ subpar reinterpretations of the same stuff that suceeded on previous albums.

But now I'm reiterating Andrew's original sentiment (from the other end of the telescope), so I'll stop here.

i think rock bands should programme their own computers, design their own record sleeves, press their own CDs, pilot their own planes, and be the architects and acoustic engineers of their own stadiums => only then will i consider their achievement creative

If they're not very good at writing songs then they should stop crowding the airwaves and do something else, they aren't bringing anything to the table.

Hahaha yeah, because ... because performing songs is completely unnecessary? Because ... because the sheet-music section of the Virgin Megastore is so much bigger than the actual-recording section?

ok the more i think abt this the weirder it is: is it REALLY the case that with all the TENS of THOUSANDS of rock and indie groups since 1965 (say) and the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of LPs entailed, NOT ONE has considered — even as a one-off project — the idea of commissioning a song-writer to supply an LP's-worth of songs which they then interpret? I don't mean cover versions: I mean songs written by [x] to be sung by [y]. Please find a counter-example or the ROCKISTS HAVE WON!!

Transvision Vamp.

:(

Wasn't their a high-profile thing by Marianne Faithful where Jarvis Cocker, Billy Corgan & other such people wrote songs for her to perform?

(er, agreement with mark s etc; nothing new to add)

The 007 Orchestra?

marianne faithfull strictly speaking not a rock group possibly

Erk. Yr correct.
Difficulty of writing parts for all the different instruments for a group (say gat/gat/bass/drums/vox) & then having the group try and reverse-engineer it?

what about D Axelrod writing the "Mass" for the Electric Prunes?

(in Latin no less)

I'd say that's more of a collaboration...I think it's great btw, although there's one funny bit - Eleiiiiison... where it goes a bit croaky & they sound like they're auditioning for the choir.

Groups should write their own songs if they are good at writing songs. If they're not very good at writing songs then they should stop crowding the airwaves and do something else, they aren't bringing anything to the table.

So there's not creativity involved in performing and recording existing material? I don't agree with this. Granted, some forms of music leave more room for creative reinterpretation. My first thought was to say that jazz seems to do pretty well with a lot of people playing material they haven't written, but that's not really a fair comparison considering the improvisatory emphasis in jazz.

People should stop writing new songs altogether for like one year and see if anybody cares.

The idea that recording artistes should all write their own songs is absurd. It's as silly as suggesting that all screenwriters should direct their movies, or all comic artists should script too. The combination of talents is very far from inevitable. As is, talented performers who aren't good writers are marginalised, and there is very limited room for great songwriters who are less talented performers.

If bands should write their own music - then they should also be required to play their own instruments and play them well - otherwise, they're just producing more crap product that we don't need. So yes, all of that would be nice. It would make trips to the record store much easier.

Not that I have anything against pop or even crap product ... just that the market is saturated.

Madonna doesn't write her own songs anymore (did she ever?), and she still seems to get respect. More than ever even. And Orbit and Mirwais laugh all the way to the bank, I suppose...

yes pop is much more sensibly organised

"Hahaha yeah, because ... because performing songs is completely unnecessary? Because ... because the sheet-music section of the Virgin Megastore is so much bigger than the actual-recording section?"

well I always saw the small sheet-music section as a chance to play and sing to some of your favourite songs. I remember doing this with a Blur book when I was younger.

I don't think it's unnecessary, no, I see the value of a pub band playing covers and all that sort of thing, and did say I like some covers of they bring some different sound or interpretation to the original (from a more critical viewpoint). but I don't think covers have that much value beyond the live situation

ok i am coming round to the social programming theory

People should stop writing new songs altogether for like one year and see if anybody cares

I tried that. Nobody did.

I'd love to write songs for other people. Any takers?

Madonna doesn't write her own songs anymore (did she ever?), and she still seems to get respect. More than ever even. And Orbit and Mirwais laugh all the way to the bank, I suppose...

I think she co-writes a lot - her collaborators supply the backing and she does the melody and lyrics. But even so she doesn't particularly need the kudos associated with songwriting - she's bigger than that. When you get to that level it's cool to delegate.

is it REALLY the case that with all the TENS of THOUSANDS of rock and indie groups since 1965 (say) and the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of LPs entailed, NOT ONE has considered — even as a one-off project — the idea of commissioning a song-writer to supply an LP's-worth of songs which they then interpret?

The reason for this is that in the initial phase of rock, the self- written thing was the big statement. The other side of the coin was that freelance songwriters became uncool, so any collaboration with them would bring no enhanced reputation to the band by association...quite the opposite in fact.

Obviously in more recent years the tide has turned a little (eg everyone more or less concedes Burt Bacharach is a great songwriter), so there have been a few collaborative things, but perhaps something deterring more of these is that such collaborations mean the critical spotlight is turned on the *interpretive* powers of the artist (which may be substandard in a lot of cases). Also it's difficult to find songwriters that the public have heard of so there's no marketing potential in it.

such collaborations mean the critical spotlight is turned on the *interpretive* powers of the artist (which may be substandard in a lot of cases)

are you talkin about uz, mate?

I think part of the problem is that these days the chief songwriter most well known who doesn't do his or her own performances is Diane Warren...with Desmond Child as a likely runner-up. For many folks, both of those songwriters are the kiss of death (and as yet I don't think anyone's tried to compare them to, say, Bacharach...have they?).

"there was another thread where i claimed - like andrew - that it's pretty impossible for most people (and therefore read: most people in bands) to write 12 good songs a year."

This is an interesting opinion, though a faulty one, when you take history into account. Remember the bands in the 60s being able to release a few records a year?

It doesn't really matter if they wrote it because 1 the public doesn't really care and 2 it is how they interpret the song that counts.

david yeah i kind of know why it is, i'm just surprised ­ given the pressure there is to differentiate yrself marketwise, and how MANY rockbands there are — that no one had realised they cd set themselves up as difft by virtue of this project. i guess it all feeds into my "rock = authenticity-panic" theory (which is actually frank kogan's anyway)

Mark S I think a group doing that would probably compromise by drafting the songwriter into the band as a non-performing member, kind of like how the Beach Boys evolved in the 60s. It would be cool actually - like a songwriting version of Bez!

What, like Tompaulin?

Hooray for Tompaulin! I did not know that about them!

bez is the secret linchpin in my "julia lennon is a member of the beatles" theory (which is mine not frank kogan's)

tom the first king crimson did this!

Didn't the Grateful Dead have a guy who wrote all their lyrics for them? (and the Smithsonian folk anthology wrote the rest.. ohHOho SNAP!)