# A good song is a good song



## sgiven (Jul 31, 2007)

This is a discussion that I've had many times with a friend of mine and I'd like to hear some other peoples opinions on the subject.

An example, My friend doesn't like ACDC, fair enough, but his reason is that he feels music is too basic to be any good. I'm not a huge ACDC fan, but I find it difficult to understand how someone couldn't appreciate some of their songs. (it's not all about ACDC, it's just a good example)

On the other hand, he likes Rush and I find them boring. I don't care how talented they supposedly are, in my experience they just don't make good songs. 

It was the "covers we refuse to play" thread that got me thinking about this again, with the debate about how the songs the general public likes to hear are lame, boring, not challenging enough.

So what do you all think, do you agree with me that good music doesn't have to be complicated, or with my friend who thinks that simple music is for unrefined tastes.

Rolling Stones or Zeppelin? That was another one of our dividers.


----------



## JCJ (Jan 3, 2008)

Like what you like. Respect others for what they like.
In case of dispute wear headphones.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

The only place you will get people to agree on music is at a concert where everyone paid to see the band. Music is like movies, hair styles, clothing etc. Everyone sees and hears things differently. My best friend wont listen to anything that does not have Tony Iommi in it. I finally managed to drag him out to a few shows. He loved Zappa Plays Zappa but could not dig Johnny Winter at all. He also thinks there is absolutely nothing funny about Spinal Tap. I have watched that a hundred times and kill myself every time.


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

i would agree...music to some...is nails acrossed a black-board for another...

like...i gravitate to bands that have really great guitars, or guitarists...whereas my wife prefers songs with a meaning...sometimes the two cross paths...sometimes we both listen to our own ipods...the thing is...it never seems to be a garenteed thing..sometimes music that she thinks i'll love, i'll actually hate, and vice versa...

beauty is in the eye, or this case EAR, of the beholder...

but i agree with sgiven, i can't stand rush either! (theres that paradox again)


----------



## fretless (Jul 3, 2009)

Funny that nobody does mention the difference between what a musician/instrumentist likes and what a non-musician likes. It is my experience that the more knowledgeable a musician is going to be about music (the top of the crate being jazz musicians), the less he's going to be able to appreciate simple songs. Of course, there are exceptions, but generally speaking, I think what I say there is true.
On the other hand, the more complicated the music will be, the less the non-musician will like it (again, there are exceptions).
I myself agree 100% with boomer


----------



## Lafite (May 16, 2009)

*a good song was a good song*

There is also the over exposure factor. I used to like the Eagles, but don't need to hear Hotel California for the millionth time. Phil Collins wore out his welcome decades ago. If he was still popular today, he'd be doing the Slap Chop commercials just for additional exposure. 

It's probably important to have diversity in musical tastes. My pet peave is when someone totally dismisses some band or artist while promoting only what they listen to. I don't listen to the music of Britney Spears, Celine Dion or the Cyrus kid, but it annoys me somehow when I hear people say they have no talent. They don't play the type of music I like, but of course they have talent.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

hey there..."a song is a song"...but...i think it's all in the DELIVERY...

ac/dc's "you shook me all night long" is actually a country song delivered by a rock band...that's why it appeals to both rockers and country lovers...

songs can "cross over" into other genres simply by physically switching instruments and/or tempos a la the band "hayseed dixie" using banjos and mandolins to record/perform the songs of ac/dc...aerosmith...motorhead...judas priest...the beatles...the stones...kiss...metallica...etc...

personally...i love power ballads...no matter what genre...as long as it's delivery is powerful...and...at a slow tempo...

skid row - "i remember you" -rock
lone star - "amazed" -country
Rihanna - "take a bow" -R&B
joe cocker - "you are so beautiful" - ???

i can't stand certain jazz tunes...it sounds like a bunch of guys tuning up...sometimes it doesn't even seem like everyone is playing the same song...things are too "busy"...i don't like the "holier-than-thou" snooty attitude either...

has anyone noticed that "twinkle twinkle little star" and "the alphabet song" have the exact same melody ?...(i bet you're humming the songs right now)...

just a few random thoughts...


----------



## gagibson (Jul 15, 2009)

I tend to appreciate songs that evoke emotion in you. When you can really connect to a song personally, then you know its good.


----------



## puckhead (Sep 8, 2008)

jimihendrix said:


> has anyone noticed that "twinkle twinkle little star" and "the alphabet song" have the exact same melody ?.. ..


also Baa Baa Black Sheep. :smile:

I often find good songs through covers from bands that I usually listen to.
Bjork's "Hyperballad" is a great tune. I first heard it done by the Twilight Singers. same for Massive Attack's "Live with Me". Twilight Singers' cover of "Too tough to die" introduced me to Martina Topley-Bird. I never would have listened to any of these people if I didn't run across a great song presented in another way.

same story for Judas Priest. They did great versions of Joan Baez' "Diamonds and Rust". can't say that I became a Joan Baez fan, but I appreciate the beauty of the writing. Hell, throw Peter Green's "Green Manalishi" on the same pile.

OK, now I'm rambling. Summary. Baa baa Black Sheep has the same melody, and everyone should listen to the Twilight Singers' album "She Loves You", which is entirely filled with fairly obscure covers.


----------



## 6string (Feb 2, 2009)

I don't think it's easy to make good simple uncomplicated songs, but maybe that's just me.

I would say it's harder to make a good simple song than a complicated one, the only problem is its harder to play the complicated one.

Is RUSH really all that complicated or do they just change things up alot in their songs, like tempo and keys etc?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

sgiven said:


> So what do you all think, do you agree with me that good music doesn't have to be complicated, or with my friend who thinks that simple music is for unrefined tastes?


These do not have to be mutually exclusive. People hear what people hear, and it varies greatly from a matter of taste to actual ability to hear harmony, pitch, and rhythm. 

_Melody (also tune, voice, or line) is a linear succession of musical tones which is perceived as a single entity. In its most literal sense a melody is a sequence of pitches and durations. (Wikipedia)_

Sometimes a basic melody (God Save The Queen, for example) can be as affective as a complicated melody (Sweet Georgia Brown, for example), and either can be completely turned on its head when harmonized (Bela Fleck's recording of God Save The Queen - My Country Tis Of Thee), or improvised (Joscho Stephan's recording of Sweet Georgia Brown), or both (listen to Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations).

Once one takes into consideration other variables like tone, timbre, articulations, dynamics, etc, all bets are off as to whether anything is simple.

The risk of much rock music is the simplified, or at least unchanging, style, and AC/DC is a good example. Same chord inversions, same tones, same arrangements, same guitars, same voice, same...and it bores some while attracting others. That's not a judgment, just an observation, as one would describe food, cars, clothing, etc.

The argument is often made that _people don't know what they like, they like what they know_, and that it's only after hearing something multiple times and being conditioned to anticipate its qualities and character that they learn to like it. It's often true, but the problem arises when this conditioning blocks out other styles, forms, and genres.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

I like simple songs from a player's standpoint.....

sometimes it's just too much fun to smash back and forth between the 2 chords on "Down by the River" for 20 minutes while taking turns at leads

I guess a difference would be - as a musician(well, hobbiest) I'd really dig hearing it too ....but would a non musician dig hearing it?...well, maybe not - maybe boring to them


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

6string said:


> Is RUSH really all that complicated or do they just change things up alot in their songs, like tempo and keys etc?


I don't know, what I like most about Rush is their lyrics, Peart is a pretty good story teller.(I'm a fan of his books too) As far as songs go, I'm all over the map. Could be the story, could be the drums, could be the guitar or vox. Depends entirely on the mood and moment.

I think what could define a good song is one that is great even when covered by other genre's, the aformentioned example of Diamonds and Rust, or Green Manaleshi. How bout Joe Cockers With a Little Help from my Friends? Man he TOTALLY changes that song, but like it or not you have to appreciate the man's passion and delivery. To each his own....

Cheers!
Lisa


----------



## Merlin (Feb 23, 2009)

jimihendrix said:


> hey there..."a song is a song"...but...i think it's all in the DELIVERY...
> 
> ac/dc's "you shook me all night long" is actually a country song delivered by a rock band...that's why it appeals to both rockers and country lovers...
> 
> songs can "cross over" into other genres simply by physically switching instruments and/or tempos a la the band "hayseed dixie" using banjos and mandolins to record/perform the songs of ac/dc...aerosmith...motorhead...judas priest...the beatles...the stones...kiss...metallica...etc...


In that case you're talking about the arrangement and orchestration vs. the song itself. There' a lot of "great music" that's simple tunes with great backgrounds.

As for the Stones - they're the best country band ever!



jimihendrix said:


> i can't stand certain jazz tunes...it sounds like a bunch of guys tuning up...sometimes it doesn't even seem like everyone is playing the same song...things are too "busy"...i don't like the "holier-than-thou" snooty attitude either...


You want snobbery? Try hanging with classical musicians. As for a holier-than-thou attitude, I've met musicians from every genre who sport that. 

As a general statement though - jazz musicians these days tend to be very well schooled players who can read fluently, play in any key at the drop of a hat and have great ears for style. That's why so many of them end up accompanying singers in genres other than jazz, or working in theatre/movie/commercial music.

Don't confuse a particular genre of jazz with "certain tunes". Avant garde/free jazz is a particular taste...just like a lot of forms of metal these days, which to my ears sometimes sound like a demolition crew taking down a building.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I tend to go for guitar oriented rock and blues. It's the sound of the guitar, and how it's being played/tone that usually gets me. There are exceptions though, I like other things like Spyro Gyra, Manhiem Steamroller, Mozart, Chet Atkins, Flatt and Scrugs, and such. If you listen to the Naveed album by Our Lady Peace, the drum sound is killer! Then there are things like Niel Young that are just "good songs", so I guess there are just some things that I can't put my finger on, but enjoy them for what they are.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Mooh said:


> The risk of much rock music is the simplified, or at least unchanging, style, and AC/DC is a good example. Same chord inversions, same tones, same arrangements, same guitars, same voice, same...and it bores some while attracting others. That's not a judgment, just an observation, as one would describe food, cars, clothing, etc.


When I think of a band like AC/DC or ZZ Top, what grates me is that they have some fantastic songs, for instance, I love You Shook Me, Money Talks, Tush and La Grange as much as anyone else, and I love hearing those songs on their own, but I can't stand listening to an album. There just isn't any diversity. There's lots of other bands that suffer from this, but these two stick out most in my mind right now.

The problem with writing simple and catchy songs is (well, first of all, it's not that easy, so kudos go out to those who can) that it can become formulaic. Bands like AC/DC and ZZ Top have the formula down and pretty much every song sounds like the other, which are well-crafted songs, but taken as a whole it can become tedious.

Someone mentioned Rush. Same problem but different approach. Prog-Rock bands love their complexity, but in making complex music your mission statement, you pigeon-hole yourself into ignoring easier avenues in order to write something in 7/4 time. 

There's plenty of songs from genres I don't necessarily care for that I appreciate as well-written songs because that's exactly what they are. Some of them, I've even grown to enjoy - I can't get enough of Conway Twitty's _Hello Darlin'_ - honestly! I think there's a basic, almost organic set of conditions that a song can meet, which upon doing so, instantly draws people in. Even people with no musical knowledge to speak of will latch onto songs that are strong in certain areas because it appeals to them on a fundamental level.


----------



## Big_Daddy (Apr 2, 2009)

hollowbody said:


> When I think of a band like AC/DC or ZZ Top, what grates me is that they have some fantastic songs, for instance, I love You Shook Me, Money Talks, Tush and La Grange as much as anyone else, and I love hearing those songs on their own, but I can't stand listening to an album. There just isn't any diversity. There's lots of other bands that suffer from this, but these two stick out most in my mind right now.
> 
> The problem with writing simple and catchy songs is (well, first of all, it's not that easy, so kudos go out to those who can) that it can become formulaic. Bands like AC/DC and ZZ Top have the formula down and pretty much every song sounds like the other, which are well-crafted songs, but taken as a whole it can become tedious.
> 
> ...


Great post and I agree with most of what you say. Too many groups find a formula that works and just stick with it, ad nauseum. A good example is Evanescence. I loved their first album but got very tired of their formula. despite Amy Lee's stellar vocals. That's what continues to impress me about The Beatles. You can listen to every one of their albums and they change the formula on each and every one to give you a completely fresh outlook on the music. And many of their tunes are so simple to play (until you try to capture the essence that they imparted to the song). I don't think anyone will ever be able to re-create the magic that those four boys had.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

Big_Daddy said:


> Great post and I agree with most of what you say. Too many groups find a formula that works and just stick with it, ad nauseum. A good example is Evanescence. I loved their first album but got very tired of their formula. despite Amy Lee's stellar vocals. That's what continues to impress me about The Beatles. You can listen to every one of their albums and they change the formula on each and every one to give you a completely fresh outlook on the music. And many of their tunes are so simple to play (until you try to capture the essence that they imparted to the song). I don't think anyone will ever be able to re-create the magic that those four boys had.


Nickelback falls into this category as well....Radio friendly catchy "party" tunes all created from the same formula.....good stuff - has it's place - but can get tedius

One that came off as quite unique sounding from other bands in the beginning was Linkin Park...but their library of songs are hard to differentiate from each other.....although they had a lot of rap in there....their music was very defined as "new rock"...so when Evanescence came out - musically I had a hard time telling them apart from linkin Park (vocals aside of course) - I used to call them "Linkin Park with a chick"

I like them both though....


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...one thing i try to remember is that when i disparage an artist, or a song, or a genre of music, i am indirectly denigrating the people who enjoy them.

although i guess that is often the _real_ intent of putting down, say, country music.

that said, i stand by my claim that mainstream taste is an oxymoron.

9kkhhd


----------



## Luke98 (Mar 4, 2007)

david henman said:


> that said, i stand by my claim that mainstream taste is an oxymoron.
> 
> 9kkhhd


Exactly.
"Pop Music" used to be what we would now call classic rock am I right? 
Try showing anyone under the age of 20 a Monterey Pop CD/Video if they even have them and tell them it's pop music.


----------



## sgiven (Jul 31, 2007)

Lots of interesting replies. 

I realize that music brings out very personal tastes. I just was interested in seeing how people felt about the merits of "difficult but worth it" over "simple but effective".

Maybe it's the engineer part of me that's attracted to the simple but effective approach. 

I get that it's not easy to write a good simple song either. One of my other hobbies is writing, and I like to write short stories but it's difficult. You'd think writing a novel would be more difficult but it's not. It's definitely more time consuming, but to try to cram a whole interesting and complete story into 3,000 or so words isn't so easy at all. 

You have to know what you're doing, what to leave in, and what to cut out. Then every part of it counts and you are left with something that looks so deceptively easy. 

I think you could say the same thing about songwriting.


----------

