How important is it to you, if at all, that your favorite musicians write their own songs?

Question

How important is it to you, if at all, that your favorite musicians write their own songs?

Answer 1

Not really... sometimes there's people that are more gifted with the words and ideas, and there's others that are more gifted with the music and how to incorporate them to the emotions he wants to convey.



If two such people form a partnership (like elton john and Taupin) it's freaking awesome.



And if one person does both, he's not a lyricist or a musician, he's a GENIUS!

Answer 2

I think someone in the band needs to write them, not necessarily the singer though. Some people have amazing vocal talent, but crappy songwriting skills, so they pair up with a great lyricist who can't sing.



But I think as long as the music sounds good, it's all good. Because honestly - if you heard a song and loved it, if you found out later that someone else had written for the person would you hate it then? That's pretty stupid if you ask me.



However if you heard a song and loved it, then later found out that the person or person in the band wrote it over a tragedy or a loved one or something, well, that just makes it an even better song.



Edit:

"Just" a singer? Jesus, people spend their entire LIVES devoted to training and practicing and perfecting their voice. To call them "just" a singer is like saying, "Oh, Beethoven? Yeah he was just some piano player."



Edit:

"The worse thing (to me) that a musician can do is to rely on a professional song writer. This tells me that they have no creativity for one, that they have no real love of music, and that they are solely in it for the purpose of making money."



Wow. I'm speechless. So it doesn't matter if they spend years creating music for their next album, if they have someone write a song or two for them, they suck huh?



So basically a person MUST be talented with their instrument (which includes vocalists) AND they have to be amazing songwriters, and **** whoever can't be both. Damn, I guess that means some of those idiot-savants aren't talented. Sure they can play beautifully, but since they can't write lyrics they don't deserve our respect, huh?

Answer 3

Nice bonus, and I will say it is very greatly apreciated, but if memory serves me correctly the first band I was ever a fan of was the Monkees if that helps at all.



I guess maybe it should be (I've always wondered in those situations why the writers don't just play their own tunes), but come on. It hasn't really come up for me since I was a child (my favorite bands aren't famous enough to really enter into the realm of other people writing their songs aside from some covers), but I think the important question of it is, if you found a band that hit your ears absolutely perfectly and found out about two or three records in that they had their stuff written for them, but based on listening to them they had become your favorite band would you suddenly not like them anymore? Really? Would you just stop liking your favorite band over that revelation? It still sounds the same.



With that said, from a legacy standpoint, I think it's largely important. There's a reason why my mom still laughs at me a little whenever the Monkees come up. I love a lot of their songs, but they are the crappy Beatles.



**************

I saw a post or two that had rules for this, but they are wrong. I found the actual rule in the musician/artists code of conduct. This should put it to rest.



It is acceptable for someone to use written material, so long as it (meaning the vocalization of said words) is recorded on a third Tuesday of a winter month and said song was written within 634 yards of the dwelling, domicile, or time shared vacationing residence of the performing artist. Otherwise that artist is a friggin abomination who knows nothing of art, has no soul and has no business casting vibrations into a microphone, unless it was a microphone of lower calibur than the industry standard for live use SM-58 which under the low-fi trump rules allow for breakage of all other rules of conduct with the exception of copywrite infringement and use of a gong larger than 6 feet in diameter for a recording with a budget of less than $50,000 pre up through but not including post production cost, as written in the Tascam/Yamaha accord of 1992. Then it's ok.





(it just dawned on me that it may come off that I was being a jerk. just making a joke. I hope it's not deemed as offensive or an attack. If so I'm sorry, it's not what I intended to do.)

Answer 4

If an artist can write a song extremely well and play it extremely well then I consider that artist an extremely good artist. As long as someone in a band writes it I consider it written by that artist. If it isn't written by the artist, then that's kind of a turn off when I listen to the song because it's like looking at a painting that someone told the painter how to make step by step. When a great painter gets a great idea the only way for that idea to truly be expressed is through the painter's own brush in my opinion.

Answer 5

Well, obviously not all that important if I'm a dead head/phish head. But it's important to me that they atleast write some, which both the Dead and Phish (obviously) do. And I do tend to have a lot of affinity for people who do write all thier music and even those who write but rarely preform (robert hunter, john hiatt). I think of those guys as the one's "that write the songs that make he whole world sing".

Not everyone is talented in all areas, so both the singer and the song writer get props from me.

A short list of those who don't write all thier own stuff: Bonnie Raitt, Allison Krauss, Susan Tedeschi

A short list of singer/songwriters I hold in high regaurd: J Browne, V Morrison, J Taylor, B Marley, B Harper, B Dylan, N Young, M Knopfler... Shyt, this list is longer than I thought. I guess I do tend to favor the musicans that write thier own stuff but I'm not exclusively anti-those who don't write thier own.

Answer 6

I'd say 50-50. To write one's own songs gives it that much more credit to the performers feelings and actions. Especially onstage. Whereas, in Country music I might like (for example) George Strait, he's a great artist, but he doesn't wirte many of the songs that become hits. He's a good showman that I might consider seeing in concert just the same. But to watch a band perform songs they wrote, such as Judas Priest, it gives much more creedence to the musicians that convey that feeling to the audience. Whether they (any artist) write their own songs or not, if it's a good one, I usually like it. I might say something like, "He's a damn good musician." But if I know that one writes their own music, then I can pinpoint that man or woman and say, "Now there's a musical genius."

Answer 7

I guess when it comes right down to it, it's pretty important. Most of my favorites write their own songs, while some are more collaborative, like Jerry Garcia and Robert Hunter.



Still, they're sharing with us a bit of their soul, and I find that I want the whole package, not just a great set of pipes or some extra nimble fingers.

Answer 8

That depends entirely on if their goal is to be a performer or a musician. A musician, in my opinion, writes his or her own music, or contributes some artistic value to each piece he or she performs. I feel that using lyrics written by a friend or someone close to them would be acceptable, as long as they can relate to what they're singing about, and as long as they also then write their own music to accompany the lyrics. I feel, however, that there is far too many "artists" who walk into the studio and perform whatever it is thats provided to them with very little thought about it. They are not musicians, and certainly not artists...they are performers. Musicians use their pieces as a sort of self-expression. Performers use them for entertainment value.

Answer 9

I guess you could say it's pretty important. But covering a few songs every once in a while isn't a sin, lol. But I'd also understand bands situations if there was a understandable reason as to why they can't come up with their own songs. So, I guess you could say, I'm open-minded about it.

Answer 10

As a rule I'm more impressed with singer/songwriters than I am with those who just sing. That's one of my objections to American Idol. There's no encouragement at all to be original. All of the singers are required to sing other artists' songs, and sometimes they're even told which artist's songs to sing! I once saw a local talent competition where each band was required to play at least one original song, and it was far more interesting and entertaining than the glorified karaoke contest they call American Idol.



Here are a few of my favorite singer/songwriters:

Sarah McLachlan

Sting

Don Henley

They Might Be Giants (John Linnell and John Flansburgh)

Rickie Lee Jones

Joni Mitchell

Bruce Springsteen



All of these artists are more compelling because they write and sing songs about topics that are meaningful to them. Compare them to Britney Spears singing "Oops, I Did It Again" and there's just no contest.

Answer 11

So perplexing, maximum of, The Farmers Daughter, Sing Me decrease back abode, A Snowball Headed For Hell involves innovations, and that i admire each and every song on the album permit Me permit you realize some song

Answer 12

Its pretty important, but some bands do great covers (like Nirvana's cover of The Man Who Sold the World by David Bowie)

Answer 13

to a point it is important

I certainly hold musicians that write their own material in much higher regard than people who don't write

I think some people never even think about if the person singing wrote the song or not

I do pay attention and it makes the artist more credible singing about something that came from them and not a songwriter

Answer 14

its not that important. lots of legends werent known for their songwriting- from aretha franklin to eric clapton. i would rather hear a musically inovative cover with a fresh arangement than a musically stale original. it is important that they make their own arrangements though, i have no respect for these teen bands who write a couple cuplets and then let their producer do all the work and call it their original song.

Answer 15

This is a really good question and I'm going to star it.



It's very important to me, because it signifies that they are really and truly doing it for the music and that they are real. The worse thing (to me) that a musician can do is to rely on a professional song writer. This tells me that they have no creativity for one, that they have no real love of music, and that they are solely in it for the purpose of making money.

Answer 16

I kinda agree with Shyhee.



Some are good with writing.

Some are better with the whole music singing/playing part.



But i like it when my fave artists write their own songs.

How about how THEIR feeling,not expressing somebody elses feelings/thoughts.

That they are REAL and who they are.

Like,Kurt cobain wrote how he thought/felt? right?

He WAS great,with the whole writing.

Sometimes artists just have the gift of writing and playing.

Some only have one gift and either its just writing or playing.

But sometimes its just better.

I mean,would somebody wanna express their emotions with a cat getting hit by a car for a meaning of death or somebody else write death happens and itll all be here sooner or later?



either way its pretty hilarious.

but there ya go.

Answer 17

Not so much Singing and songwriting are 2 dif talents. Just because you can write a beautiful song does not mean u have the best voice to deliver it.

Answer 18

Extremely important!! I probably wouldn't even listen to a particular band if they didn't write their own music. (with the exception of Michael Buble, which is a total different story). It just makes them seem fake and talentless.

Answer 19

I think it's very important. I don't see any other way they can truly be called "artist" unless they do their own music. If someone else writes it, you are just a "singer". All these pop artists, boybands, girlbands, ect. don't even write the music, or even actually sing the songs on stage, and they get all the credit. I hate that.

Answer 20

It doesn't bother me if they don't write their own songs, but I appreciate them a lot more if they do. I tend to like the songwriter in a band more than the other members, like Tom Scholz (Boston) or Pete Townshend (The Who).

Answer 21

It's pretty damn important.....but not a Total necessity. Some of the greatest songs in the last 50+ years were sung by people who didn't write em. (eg: Sinatra, Elvis, Motown, etc)



Even my boys, the Beatles did several covers. But when the performer is also the composer, I admire them THAT much more. :)

Answer 22

yes it is very important to me because i know that this musician who i respect and admire wrote this piece of music and i feel like i might know a little more about them since they created it:]

Answer 23

It adds a passion to the lyrics that can not be 'given' to that song.

But, I think that if the band itself is talented with lyrics it should be collaborated and can be a similar result.

So its important. But not completely mandatory.

Answer 24

Very important! Cuz music, in my opinion, is more than just something to dance around to. I like for the songs that I listen to to have meaning or something I can relate to.

Answer 25

i think its pretty important, but not 100% necessary... i think if they write there own lyrics it adds to the quality of the band as a whole...

Answer 26

not at all. the important thing is that they sound good. who cares who wrote it if it sounds bad? ^^