The lightbulb over my head just blinked on

[ncc1701]

Today is one of those days where WAY too many coincedences are happening. It's freaking me out.I was just scanning through an e-mail at work and this profound insight jumped out at me, and I just felt like it was something you guys might get something out of too.It came as part of a newsletter by a local writers' guild that always includes a few writing tips from the pros. The "tips" section today talked about comparing characters' emotions and readers' emotions, and how to keep scenes from becoming flat and un-engaging. The author said to pose these questions if the emotion in a scene "feels" wrong: a. Are scene agendas emotionally-driven?b. Does character emotion evoke the reader emotion I intend?c. Does character or reader emotion stay the same too long?d. Are character emotions true to back story and circumstances?Here's where the lightbulb clicked on for me: Take this out of the literary context and apply it to writing music. It works for vocal and instrumental pieces.a. Is the song emotionally driven?b. Does the vocal (or lead instrument) evoke the listener emotion I intend?c. Does the singer's (or player's) or listener's emotion stay the same too long?d. Are the music's emotions true to the lyric or the form of the piece?The main reason I'm less than delighted with most of the music I write is exactly because of these problems, I now realize. The newsletter tips went on to say:· No clear emotion may mean flat exposition that can be cut or rewritten to deliver a more sensual, judgmental, subjective character experience in the world of the story.In musical terms, if it's not conveying an emotion to the listener, get rid of it and make way for something that is. This is really going to change the way I approach writing music and I hope it's helpful to somebody else out there too.Kathleen

[cameron]

Interesting way of looking at it Kathleen. I'll try to look at a few of my own songs and see if they meet the criteria.Cam

[jwebbinspired]

Kathleen, Great stuff!! We need more thought-prokoing, enlightening posts like this. I really clicked with what you wrote, I've have sensed this before but could not sort out what exactly I was sensing. But after you explained all this I think my lightbulb went off too. Great post!Andy

[mojobone]

Great stuff! Thanks for posting. "In musical terms, if it's not conveying an emotion to the listener, get rid of it and make way for something that is."That is probably the best and most relevant piece of songwriting advice that you will ever read. I see so much stuff that comes so close to being great, but just a line or two of 'filler' can ruin the whole wretched mess.

[pitterpatter]

Kathleen:You've made some great points regarding how the song should evoke emotion from the listener. Emotion is important but of course it's not the whole story. In fact, in my opinion, some songwriters and especially singers are going too far with this emotional response thing. In another thread in the General Hangout about the UK Eurovision Song Contest, a song called "It's My Time," by Andrew Llyod Webber and Diane Warren is being discussed. This song is a perfect example of how the emotional response is being taken too far. The only thing emotional about the song for me is the singer's constant attempt to make it emotional. The song lacks the substance to be sung with this intensity of emotion. Therefore, the singer comes across as arrogant and vain (It's my time and you are going to see how great I am. Get out of my way!) to paraphrase. What's all this emotional whining over nothing at all? The first thing I look for in a singer is a soothing voice. If a singer doesn't have a soothing voice, I don't care how well trained they are. If they come across as irritating and squeaky and annoying like a nail scraping on a chalkboard, I just don't want to listen. And sometimes the more a singer attempts to cry and moan and project emotion, the squeaker and whiner and more annoying their voices become to my ear. To me, a lot of the singing that goes on now is just a squeaking, annoying whine fest. Every voice teacher should put 'SOOTHING" on their lesson schedule. When soothing is combined with talent, technique and power, then you will find a great singer. I guess my point is, yes, emotion is important but don't take it to extremes. If the lyrics don't match the emotion of singer, it just comes across as sounding stupid and irritating, IMO. Well, there's my two cents worth.

[hummingbird]

Feb 7, 2009, 6:32am, pitterpatter wrote: If a singer doesn't have a soothing voice, I don't care how well trained they are. If they come across as irritating and squeaky and annoying like a nail scraping on a chalkboard, I just don't want to listen. To me, a lot of the singing that goes on now is just a squeaking, annoying whine fest. Every voice teacher should put 'SOOTHING" on their lesson schedule. When soothing is combined with talent, technique and power, then you will find a great singer. If a "trained singer" sounds like nails on a chalkboard... I don't think much of the training.The purpose of training should be to develop our intuitive connection to the voice as well as the release the natural voice. In time, as the 'vocal muscle' and our awareness develops, our voice should be warmer and richer, more consistent in tone and yet display more texture. IMO a well trained voice doesn't need manipulation or breathiness. A well trained voice paints the song in textures that transmit emotion... therefore, I don't need to "put on" emotion. If I've done the work of understanding the song and if I've created an emotional attachment to the song... I should sing it as though I wrote it myself... and I trust that my relationship to the text is expressed in the melody and in the textures of my voice and how I phrase the poetry. I don't "put a song on", I 'bring a song out' by visualizing the story and trusting my instrument to respond to that visualization. A trained voice should be that responsive.Interesting discussion

[mojobone]

If a singer is "over-souling" or working too hard, that's deplorable, but it's out of the songwriter's hands and beyond the scope of this thread, where we're concerned with the lyrical mechanics of involving the listener emotionally. Character development in a three minute pop song can require some really heavy lifting from the lyrics, given the space limitations.

[ncc1701]

Feb 7, 2009, 6:32am, pitterpatter wrote:If the lyrics don't match the emotion of singer, it just comes across as sounding stupid and irritating, IMO. Most true. I kind of took that as part of the tip that asks "Does the vocal (or lead instrument) evoke the listener emotion I intend?"It's like that Phil Collins song, "Groovy Kind of Love" (which I know was a cover of an older song, I don't know by whom) or Stevie Wonder's "I Just Called to Say I Love You." I really like both those singers, and when they're both in their niche and doing the kind of music their voices were made for, they're unbeatable. But those two songs are SO simplistic and SO boring that I just don't get any emotion out of them at all, even with those pros at the vocals.Another case in point - I'm writing an instrumental lullabye right now as a present for my sister who's having her first baby next week. I got my flute out and was all set to give the most soaring emotional performance of my life - until I realized that it would be entirely wrong for a soothing, calming, heartwarming, sleep-inducing piece of music. So I toned it way down. I'll post it when it's done.Kathleen