New Creation vs. Re-Creation?

... Create (1) a brand new song or (2) Re-create the old lovely turd?
(by lovely turd I mean, you love it but its not acceptable ... for any reason)
That, my friends, is the question that haunts me.  I know there are reasons we oft become obsessive compulsive to have rich and full (aka perfect) songs.  But of writing new songs or re-writing songs ... there is no end.  And you probably know your own song-writing preferences(s) the best.
 
1) I've seen groove-artists pop out perfect trance funk (complete with vox) in 10 minutes.  And, IIRC, many of you suggest, "now hurry up and get over your last song ... and start a new song"?!
 
2) But other love-laborors may spend 10-100 years of vanity re-creating one or two songs or albums (not just tweaking and pasting) ... until one or two perfect songs or albums become patiently realized.  Many of you might say: Fix it, the hook is powerful, re-create dubious elements ... and never quit until its beautiful (exquisite) on many levels.
 
Furthermore, if you've written a song (or album) that you love and believe in ... you may actually want it to be richly perfect ... in message, vibe, art, polish, etc. for various reasons.
 
Again: What might be your current suggestions (or pearls) on: (1) new song creations vs. (2) re-creations of your old songs? 
 
(Note: I sort of fall into the latter camp currently ... as I'm aging ... and I'm not sure there's a dogmatically, politically, or religiously correct answer here ... I see good and bad in both)

 
  Its sort of one in the same in the physcaligy of our minds.
if we redo a song it is "new". at least something is new
about it. what concerns me is the term "beating a dead
horse"
 
  there is a point where our minds are meaninful and
there is a point where our minds are cynical. one might
think an 80 year old man planting a tree is crazy. is it?
 
  there are some facts to concider. the song is what it is
no matter how well "or bad" the recording is. there is
no doubt that quality sound is better.  a beautiful "tone"
is just that be it an instrument or a mix.
 
  going to a junk yard and polishing an old junker (car)
may result in one of two things. either its all in vain
or you get motivated to do a total restore which turns
out to be a classic gem.
 
  people are satisfied by activity and or results. I
personaly dont want to be intertained by just "doing
something". our society sometimes leads us to think
"just do it" and if a person "thinks" a little bit we
are then making things complicated.
 
  think about it. no one "polishes a turd" no sane
person that is. so id drop that term from the equastion
alltogther. now lets get down to results. if the question
is polish the old or work on new i think its a matter of
balance.
 
  new allways becomes old. if i write a song today
in a few days its an older song. its a time facter.
there are some questions only we/ourselves can
answer
 
 
 
 

Hey P, you must be wired to the same channel that broadcasts to my brain, because this thought has been nagging me for a while, too. As always, great thread, and the responses are equally stirring.

Lege talked about perfectionism. No doubt. I think perfectionism (or maybe an irrational need to control things) is a big contributing factor which explains an obsession with 'turds'.

Then there's what jman said (jman, you're a true poet, my friend)... "one might
think an 80 year old man planting a tree is crazy. is it?" which offers the idea that you're never too old (or in this case, your song is never too old) to yield something fresh & new.

And I think Hack summed it up: "rewriting is the secret to great songs."

But all of this depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want a top 40 chartbuster, maybe the best strategy is to crank out as many puppies as you can, and one of them will strike oil. In other words, take the "Elton John philosophy" of scrapping any tune that doesn't fully materialize within a day or 2. But I think if your intent is to create something that'll last (not necessarily popular at first but something that in 50 years may still be around), you should dedicate an entire lifetime to getting it right.

My personal angle is that I'm a hopeless recycler. I don't think there's such thing as a true turd. You can always find something worth recycling, and with a lot of effort you can make other people see the value in it, too. Or perhaps not. But if you yourself see any potential value in it, isn't that enough to keep trying?

Great line from Eddie & the Cruisers as Eddie, having just been dissed by the record company, stands amidst a giant scrap heap of old cars:

"Here we are, guys. Right where we belong. You got your Edsels,... Norges,... Dumonts... and Eddie Wilson. Together at last, creating our own incredible monument to nothing! Here's to nothing, fellas! Here's to nothing!"

Ok, pseudo-philosophical tangent aside, I think if nothing else it's a good exercise to do your best with a turdy old mix. Push your abilities to the limits and see how good you really are at the mixing desk. If you can polish a turd into something people can appreciate, then isn't that a testament to your incredible production abilities?

Note: I wouldn't know. But this thread has given me an idea for my next album title...

Spaceduck: Turds

Could be a triple album, folks

Spaceduck wrote: I wouldn't know. But this thread has given me an idea for my next album title... Spaceduck: Turds Could be a triple album, folks   

  
 
Unplugged....of course.
 
 
 
Songs are like compost.   Throw'em out back and they sprout.  
 
Lots of great advice on this thread.   One thing that's been fun for me is to dress up a turd in an entirely new outfit.  A slow melancholy love song I"ll just play with (since i no longer feel any life in it's present incarnation) and rave it or make an ad lib vocal line that will totally change the songs identity. 
Playing a song and then clicking a synth I never use (just for fun...wheeeeeeee) , will open up new interps on a piece also. 
I guess I'm saying that 'songs' have a certain identity in our minds when we first write them but with a little bit of alchohol and some crazy free plug ins you can take it somewhere new.
 
Yipppeeeeeeeee.
 
 

 
  many times something good happens when a song
is writen. if we are the least bit aware of anything we
find that something was gained even if a tune turns
out to be junk. it could be such things as developing
skills be it musical/aural/perception tech etc.
 
  in many cases we have to learn about ourselves. we
have to figure out why we think or percieve the way
we so. do i think a song of mine is great when it stinks?
or do i think a song of mine is awfull when it aint?
 
  How can we as writers even make any since of it all
within rational?  there are some general guides a person
can go by but what are they? it just turns into question
after question untill there is no absolute.
 
  even absolute becomes a question. is there an
absolute?   what if you ask me jimmy? where are you
headed?   I say "in the direction im walking" that is
an answer to your question but yet still doesnt answer
it (to you).
 
   there are absolutes just like truth is truth. some
people say truth is relative but that can not be
because if it was relative it would not be truth.
 
   it seems to me that realizing the direction or where we
are headed at the very start of the writing process
speaks out to us and the actions reveal the direction.
 
  ive writen probably 3 to 5 hundred songs.  most of
them are absolute junk. Hum? but we now have
another question. junk? according to who? thats
according to me of course only a very small percentage
even made it to the recording stage.
 
  you cant run with the "ball" if you dont have it in
your hands.  yes another question? do you want the
ball? i have no desire to even record many of the
songs ive wrote let alone polish or re write them.
 
  some people may not want to hear that because if say
a person has only 3 or 4 songs they are holding on for
dear life in hopes of it becoming something.
 
  we get to a point also where we "think" we've wrote the
best song we can do. and one way or another it is going
to become something. if we look at a song and evaluate
it (asuming its written "completed") or even just in part we
allready know many things.
 
   however "knowing" and being "aware" are two different
things. If there is artistry in the polishing then we find that
it really isnt polishing at all. its re shaping. Reality is a
word that can be very offensive to an aspiring writer.
 
  but it doesnt have to be.  in fact it can be your best
freind. you dont want to be all pumped up about how
wonderfull this work of art you have is and hang on
for all youve got but you should be able to really
enjoy what youve done and be glad of it.
 
 if your reaching for the stars thats great. but if your
feet leave the ground youve lost stabilty. i question if
the term "re creation" is even a term at all. if a song
has been writen allready it isnt created again its just
changed.
 
  unless im wrong nothing in this world is ever re created.
does a re write really mean it was never finished in
the first place? i think musical maturity is an important
facter. but then again for anyone who isnt musicaly
mature this term is once again offencive.
 
  we sometimes spend our time responding with an
action. someone says hey do it "like this" do that"
i think good focus is esseintial for people like us who
do what we do.
 
   this really becomes more a matter of (to me anyway)
not whether to "create a new song" or "re write
an old one" but more of a question of "how am i doing?" 
 
  if i climb a ladder to the top only to discover it's
on the wrong building thats a bummer.    
 
 
 

Keep polishing!
When you started that track, you filled it with emotion, which will all go flowing down the drain, if you don't do you uptmost to turn that track into the magical landscape you originally intended. That doesn't mean you can't focus on new material. Just remember that one of those old compositions could easily be turned into the best work you've ever done.
Writing music can wear you down, emotionally and mentally, so don't put energy into music and then leave it half baked. Keep it on the backburner if necessary, but don't forget about it. Slowly but surely you will turn it into a gem, and none of that emotional energy has gone to waste.

I normally stick to recording NEW songs.
Having said that, I've written 20 or so that I was never quite happy with.  I had a sudden idea recently to try some as simple acoustic-guitar versions, and it really revitalized my writing.  Re-recording the old turds gave them polish I could be proud of, and gave me a few new ideas.  Well worth the turd-polishing!


(Just posted the first couple here, if anyone's curious...)

I read that "Start Me Up" was an old turd for the Stones.  Apparently had been written as a reggae track in the early 70s, but never worked.  7 or 8 years later, they played a rock version and had (probably) their last real hit...

hairyjamie


You can't polish a turd.


But you can roll it in glitter.

or pecans. 
 
I have struggled with this question myself, Philip, my friend.  I guess I do some of both.  there are many unfinished pieces in my system and there are many songs that never "made the cut" and were never "published" even tho I considered them "finished."  the ones that get out are probably only about 10% of what I have worked on and I'd love to increase that number, so sometimes I'll go back and work on some turds or semi-turds or "not ready for prime time non-turds."
 
I think it probably just is a matter of what you think will happen if you go back to work on it.  will working on it cause it to shine?  or will it just waste your time? 

Profound responses by you all.  You are each extremely sympathetic and observant.  Thank you.

Re-creation means a lot of different things, to be sure; but your responses sooth my conscience.  I have songs I've worked on for 30 years off and on ... that are my puny life.

IIRC, in natural science there's the law (fact) against both creation and re-creation (i.e., 1st law of thermo and all). 

But with music, love, religion, computer-developing, design, art, film, architecture, politics, and 99.9% of everything else, creation seems a very common and acceptable term. 

Hence re-creation seems a reasonable and standard goal for fixing old turds.

Daily inspiration for you/me ... to write music has to be a mega-re-creation event, the way I see it.  This is not faith, nor is it optimistic mania ... just a logical observation to help you/me explain your/my productivity, to never quit, to make a richly beautiful piece out of nothing, etc.

  I find it interesting that the same word can mean so many
different things under different contexts. One thing that
seems apparent is that once a song has gotten to a certain
stage of maturity it can sometimes be difficult to "unthink"
things and go into the what is called the "polishing stage"

  The reason I say this is because if your fixing and tweaking
you are "treating" what is already done. Even a rebuild in a
since is not changing the "main factor" of the song. But
what is truly interesting is the fact that a given person
can turn what was once a "not very good song" into a gem.

  So the "should you?" questions turn into "can you?"
or "can it be done?" It surely "has been done" so yes
it is possible to turn a "dull" tune/production into a great
one. Person "A" could surely do that while person "B'
doesn't have the skills to do so.

  In basic terms it's easier to become a great recording
engineer than to be a great producer. (Or so it seems)
But I sense something in those great producers.
I think they get a lot of credit for (some anyway) what
the "session"players do.

  They know the right people to use to get great results.
In our case we are an "one in all package". One single
person is doing "everything". If we are good at many
things (in producing/writing/performing etc)
 it all by ourselves then yes we will turn out good stuff
and as we learn more we can also be able to (using
your term) "re create" (and I'll add) "with more quality"

  But the "should" or "if" questions are also dependent
on factors of which only the given person can decide.
Asking the question of "what is the goal?" may be
helpful.

  Having reasons to do certain things is also good.
I may work endlessly on a song that will never
"make the headlines" but what i gain and learn from
doing so is "polishing" my skill level which also
at the same time (hopefully) "polishing the song".

  It almost seems to boil down to the fact that
sometimes the end result carries less weight
than what was gained in the process.
If someone were to ask me what my best song is?
I'd like to say "I haven't written it yet"



 

wickerman


Hi Philip, hope all has been well with you.

I'm of the thinking go new, unless you can add to what was done previously. If you can improve upon what has already been done - then go for it. For a couple of reasons - maybe you have some better sounds to work with or better equipment to yield better sounds.

Also, maybe that extra time brewing in your head gave you some ideas to flesh out the project further. Sometimes a simple addition can drastically alter what was originally done.

Of course it should be promoted t play with previous recordings one has made just a lesson in growth when dealing with writing and recording - just be sure to play around with a duplicate copy of the project!!

Also - don't be afraid to recycle and use some melodies in different songs. That can in turn bloom into a fully fleshed out idea on it's own, inspiring you to go further.

I echoe this...
 
If the song is not reaching out to be polished I sure as heck won't.  If there is some glow to it still then that's the door into an endeavor...otherwise it's filed as compost or maybe a middle or just something to bang on the piano.  Once I open up to 'new' then 'oldies' start to show up if they can compliment it.

Carefully regarding all your very excellent thoughts, Rick, Blue, Jimmy, G-Hacker, and, Terry,

A friend requested me to paint a 'Good Shepherd' ... which I've been doing incrementally over the last couple weeks ... 10 minutes a day +/-

... The painting, like the next song idea, appears to have evolved/re-created (if you will) out of prior paintings/songs ... themes, instruments, style, tempos (if you will), colors, distortions, etc.

The painting/symphony ... polishes and re-generates itself afresh daily.

Pre-sketches become polished pre-sketches ... which in turn get smeared into levels of ambience and groove formations (if you will).

Some mistakes are allowed to snakily weave about and hopefully rhyme through the canvas/song.

For me, there seems a time to build up and a time to tear down ... with great artistic meanderings along the way.