i'm continually hearing reports of, 'well this one took us eight days to make,' vs. 'we'll once i was able to cognitize this life i was leading i began to begat a plan of escape, all the while through constant revision my eyes had seen and taken hold of this album, 'thus was spewed "ancient wisdom."'
but what is this difference between spontiniety and traditional thought practise. like, 'hawksley is so cool, fuck, he feels it!,' i mean, 'isn't it time we returned to structure?'
i mean what does it mean to live in waterloo anyways?
are the lines so clearly drawn (between won and defeated)?
and besides, why should nick drake tell me how to evolve?
is he sensitive? or some bulshit like that?
spare yourselves like fallen leaves.
― yabut, Monday, 9 September 2002 20:23 (twenty-three years ago)
there shouldn't be too many songs anyhow. the friendly giant for example... "not too rhetorical"... before i was a man...
oh rusty...heehee. period.
oh colonel. period.
thank god for seseme street. period.
― abut, Tuesday, 10 September 2002 04:10 (twenty-three years ago)
Ah man, what's the question?
All songs take as long to write as they take to sing. Or less. That's an answer.
But what's the question?
― Eyeball Kicks, Tuesday, 10 September 2002 23:34 (twenty-three years ago)
right.
i believe my original intention was to seperate the revisionists vs. the creationist approach to composition.
i do see, however, how my tangental flight of fancy did murk the topic.
thank you for your answer; its true some songs are written in such a timeframe, perhaps just as it should be...in real-time...the thoughts and feelings more or less coalescing with a greater amount of immediate continuity. i suppose this is the most typical benefit of a stream of consciousness style, malkmus for example befudges my point...that is unless my point of continuity is that it is more emotively driven through the creationist use (poetry, etc..)
i seldom find it as easy to compose a song in the length of time it takes to perform it.
although i do admit to a certain reluctance to altering any material that i have proccured in a stream of consciousness manner.
and so the question is interesting as it begins to pick at the personalities of those who employ various methods in order to comfortably (or not so much so) perform.
i suspect that someone such as nick drake obsessed over every detail of his songs just so. but then that is my impression of his manner as interpreted through a judgement on the 'type' of music he makes. i would probably make similar judgements on others who display various forms of quirky-pseudo-classical string arrangements.
his lyrics, however, indicate a more ragged, off the cuff perspective.
anyways, i was more interested in getting into the personalities and stories of musician X, rather than seeking some sort of approval of method a vs. b. myself, i believe that the way a song comes about is entirely situational and prone to further input as one grows (and there are cases of songs being altered to a detrimental extent) but the original body or idea should be indestructible... the only part that will have an opportunity to significantly alter is the mood.
i would like to appologize for my crassness and evasive wording at the top of the thread.
― yabut, Wednesday, 11 September 2002 03:47 (twenty-three years ago)