WHAT makes a song unique?

The melody, the singer's voice, the lyrics, if they relate to your own experience or are funny/witty.
The virtuosity of the instrumentalists.
The feeling.

IMHO, what makes a song unique is a blend of the familiar (without being over trite or ripped off) and fresh mixture of melody, harmony and rhythm. A great lyric can't hurt either.

To write hooks, you have to listen to music that is hook oriented. If you listened to death metal all day long for a month, your hook writing skills would not be any better. If you listened to super out of the box jazz, your hooks would not come. If you want hooks, you have to live hooks and understand how they are created.

As a guitarist, it was very easy for me to practice, learn scales and shred with my 80's heros. However, "phrasing" was something that was NOT in my style at all at first. Guitar was more of a scale sport to me. I'm glad to have grown out of that, but the stuff I learned in that time is priceless to me now. You see, phrasing is a totally different animal and ISN'T so easy because it is NOT a boxed scale pattern that you just learn. You can't teach phrasing anymore than you can teach someone how to write a memorable hook or how to be melodic.

Melody, hooks, they are all feelings. But rest assured, if you surround yourself by bands that are famous for infectious hooks, they will rub off on you eventually and you will find yourself singing melodies that belong to you. It's ok to be inspired by a song and use its formula while playing a few parts backwards. This is how we grow. Leaning how to come up with hooks is like studying anything else really. The more you search and learn about them by listening to, playing along to or even covering a famous song, the more you get in the "infectious hook" frame of mind. But you really have to go deep into it. Whether it be popular country or the pop/dance/R&B/soul genres or heck, even little kids music....the hook is where you need to concentrate. Grab any Disney movie and listen to the music. The hooks are brilliant even when the soundtrack is NOT sung or performed by anyone famous.

Justin Bieber..brilliant with hooks even though quite a few he hasn't written himself.

Britny Spears....great hooks.

Janet Jackson....awesome stuff..

Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Michael Bolton, Richard Marx, Journey, Bon Jovi, MJ, Prince, Luther V, Alicia Keys, Beyonce`, Def Leppard. Yanni, Kenny G, Keith Urban, Chesney, Dolly Parton, NSYNC, Boyz 2 Men, Black Crows, Alice in Chains, Foo Fighters, Goo Goo Dolls, Gary Moore, Doobie Bros, Foreigner, Styxx, Queen, Boston....like them or hate them, these are some of the hookiest artists of all time in a wide variety of styles in my opinion and what I've listened to for melody sense, infectious hooks, vocal delivery, and some darned good songwriting.

To think and write hooks, you have to surround yourself with hooks as a good starting point.

As for "unique" and the title of your post, I hate the word as it is misused in music and had been 50% of the time it's used. Unique to me means something different that is also something great that sticks out in a good way. The word unique these days is given to a large scale of artists who just plain, outright suck...period. When someone can't sing or play well...the downfalls of that artist are often times classified as "unique". "Unique and suck" years ago....wouldn't get you a record deal. Today, it's the standard norm for the majority of artists in my opinion.

Marylnn Manson to me is unique in his own way. I'm not a fan, but he's got a very different style to him with theatrics and a few good hooks with nice agression. KISS was unique, MJ was unique, Van Halen was unique. These bands were trend setters even if some may not have totally created a style or borrowed a bit from others that ended up being a fresh style over time. Unique to me is totally different, mind-blowing, inspirational and fresh while delivering the goods in a language that people can relate to while being accepted as also being really great at your craft. Instead, the word is more used for underachievers most times....so I stay away from that word unless someone I hear truly deserves it.

-Danny

No rules here. Just write/compose whats coming from your heart and it will be unique.

Regards,
Daniel
https://soundcloud.com/user9149108/highway

''WHAT makes a song unique?'' I think it goes back to another recent thread - actually having something to say gets you halfway there.

whack


Memorable and unique are very different IMO.
Memorable for sure is Justin Beiber's chorus, but it is far from unique.

I would echo what savageopera said, its the mystic produce of your consciousness that produces that beautiful flow of creativity, don't get in the way of the music is what I heard once and only now am I getting to understand what that means.

Danny is pretty experienced when it comes to this stuff he has seen a lot more that most people here and his post is very informative. I've no problem creating pop hooks, very easily in fact, however I have often been labelled as being "generic" i.e. without uniqueness and hence I've started to listen to more abstract non-produced artists to help me steer out of that box a little.

You do realise that very few artists have the whole package and that the reach the masses publicly they are generally thrown in with a team of lyricists, musicians, choreographers, producers etc to create the "package".

Cian

You Sir...better not change due to what you hear from others. If "generic" is something you enjoy, why change? One thing I learned Cian which I hope you take with you out of this post....listen to your heart first and foremost...and secondly, listen to someone that IS someone. Meaning, if a label or someone high up the ladder that can make a difference in your world tells you to change something or says "you're too generic" then maybe at least consider what they are saying. Until that time....many listeners and other folks that hear you, will say things to hurt you. You're VERY talented...with talent, comes jealousy brother...remember that. I'd not change a thing if I were you other than to keep adding to your awesome song list. Change comes over time with experience as well as life experience and self evolution. If you try to change for the sake of change or because a handful of people have made a mention of something that fly a desk as a day job that has nothing to do with music....you have your answer brother. Sometimes when we think too hard or try to focus too much on change....we affect what we do well and make things worse to where we lose ourselves. Just be careful. 
 
If I listened to all those that told me I was too 80's or my voice didn't fit my rock music, I would have never tried to do anything with my music. I would have been sitting here trying to conform to the masses as well as "the in thing" and would have missed the boat on where my heart was truly taking me. So just keep that in mind. Experiment and evolve whenever possible...but always stay true to your heart, listen to the comments you receive, but always consider the sources and YOU make the final call. At the end of the day, it is YOUR art and YOUR music. I'll leave you with one other thing...
 
Be thankful you're blessed to write memorable hooks. If it were easy for everyone, they would all be stars. Hooks can take you places. You may not become a big pop star....but what if you wound up being the king of childrens music...or Disney approached you....or Sesame St. called you or Wii wanted to use your music in a dance off game? Yeah....you better believe I'd jump on that train too brother. Hooks can take you in many places where other styles of music may not. Don't you dare change a thing other than the number of songs you have. :) Take this from someone that knows a little something about this that also thinks the world of you and your talents. :)
 
-Danny

Let me preface this post by saying:

I know folks are going to read this post and say it's all over the map, but sometimes you have to go branch out and go deeper, especially as the subject of music is no small subject to tackle - even if it's just one aspect (ie: theory/composition/arranging/production, etc.)

Moving on ...

After reading Kallie and Danny's responses, which I agree with, I also agree with it as looking at it from a individual/societal perspective.
Everybody's heard the contradicting statements when comparing to people (mainly women but men, too) - especially when wanting friends or potential mates

"S/he's so hot, but dumber than a box of rocks!"
"S/he ain't much to look at, but she can run circles around Einstein!"

Which person do I ask out?

As someone said earlier, if every artist had meaningful songs, then listening to music (the lyrics part) would be no fun at all, but tunes that are meant to be about having fun aren't meaningful. Yet, I find it absurdly ironic how folks find unnecessary underlining meanings to things that aren't pushed in there faces, but ignore them when they are put in their faces.

Like I've always said when it comes to movies: People pick out what they wanna pick out, no matter what you put in front of them. ie: There could be a slew of deep messages within an extremely violent movie, but it's repulsed just because it was violent. (The Saw Franchise for example). 

Do you see what I'm talking about?

Same goes regarding the classical (and all periods) vs. contemporary music. The former is sophisticated and says something every time you hear it, just like a thought-provoking movie (Inception). Then, you've got the modern bubble-gum pop akin to a comedy (Baby Mama).

I guess you see that everything isn't for everybody; however, you also see how creators (not just music) can use the term uniqueness - which, I too, don't like because again, nor everybody nor does everyone want to be all of those artists that Danny mentioned. They are in a class all by themselves and while it's nice to be influenced by them, don't lose sight of who you are either. "Don't give up what makes you, you" as said in a Anti-drug commercial just to impress people. 

As I argued (politely with Jeff though), I can understand how and why some things need to be "dumbed down." However, that in and of itself, has a very bad connotation. (I'm a gamer, so I hear this alot). Again, just remember that - everything is not for everybody - which is why production companies/artists/products get a ton of flack for the dumbing down -- er, streamlining -- because they try to be everything to and for everybody. (This includes the company this forum is tied to. No offense, Bakers)

I'm all for trying "to get a broader audience" and do know that sacrifices must be made - even though I might not like it; however, you really are shooting yourself in the foot if you try to appeal/appease everybody and everybody includes more than the audiences to listen to said genres.

Remember Tolkken, who wrote her first adult book? That was pretty much panned as the "Mrs. Hobbit" moniker won't wear-off any time soon; however, seemingly adults didn't like this book either. Having said this, you can't instantly jump out the box -- you can, but most people take gradual changes with a smile - moreso than abrupt one. There's nothing wrong with experimenting and in Tolkken's case, she may have a successful adult book or books one day.

So, perhaps the term one should use is different, but it would seem that people are afraid of that word and it's on so many different levels. What I want to know is why; yet, why is everyone trying to so hard to be something you're afraid of being (and not just for the hell of it?) The conscious effort Kallie mentioned above.

Is it indifference, perhaps? (This is what breeds dislike/hate) That's on a much deeper level than what is being discussed here, but do you see the similarities?

In terms the recipe - well, there's no one recipe because you'd get the "trite/ripoff" comments I mentioned in my previous post responding to the OP However, I wonder if that's the spiteful way of saying - influence (and I can make the distinction between both terms).

I still say that it's all about identification. One does not have to be off in the wilderness away from civilization to be identified; some visible clue while skimming the crowd can lead to identification as well. It'll be somewhat harder, but it can as has been done. (Where's Waldo,anybody?)

You have to be able to fit in before you can stand out or if you can't fit in, make it so you do stand out, then perhaps you might fit in.

Notice how artists are molded in they get into the music business! Then, after years of scrapping knees and breaking bones, they become their own person (assuming they broke away from mgmt.). That's why you hear things like "manufactured artist," etc; however, that is not the artist. That is the company they work for.

"My house My rules! You don't like it, move out!" or when they become of age, they boast how they can and will move out. It's unfortunate that people part ways on bad terms, but it happens.

But again, as it is still a matter of opinion if someone is manufactured or genuine, it's all about who you as the artist can identify with and how you identify yourself - most notably of and with yourself, first and foremost.

I've said many times that I arrange moreso than composing from scratch because that's who I am. I identify with that and so do the people around me. I've done original pieces before, but have ended up dissatisfied because that's not me! Be who you are!

Same with music although what comes through one's voice, instruments, writing utensils, speakers in an extension of the person who sings, plays, writes and listens to. She's going to be who she wants and you let her tell you - don't tell her, Suggest? Yes! Demand? Most certainly not! 

I happen to identify with her and she with me despite disagreements, but how boring would this "marriage" be if there were none. Even, literally the best marriages work when both are one, but have the individual identities as well.

That is how outsiders "identify" a happy marriage (among other clues) - even if everything plus the kitchen sink says otherwise! They most certainly can tell and unhappy one, especially if you don't hide it well!

Again, identification, identification, identification!!

I think this is the reason the term unique is used because it's very hard to identify oneself - especially, when it comes to the arts & entertainment.

Music having tons of genres and subgenres and the cross-pollination or movies/tv shows/video games/books, etc. having bits and pieces of other genres within them although they fall under one general category. Maybe it's that we need to get away from categorization. It's wonderful as it helps organization, but as noted with the fusing, categorization becomes more and more convoluted. In fact, it has been for quite some time.

So, you can see why the uber-generic term, "unique" is used although I agree that it has next to nil meaning, but so have alot of other terms in the English language (but that is most certainly another topic of discussion). I don't disagree with Danny who says that such a term means "a lesser endowed talent," in one sense, but how often have we heard when an artist is asked about their sound:


"It's a mix of this and that!" or when composition/arranging/production say that no album should be one where every song sounds the same nor should they sound like they're all of the place. Of course, to the physical ear, no album should ever be; however, an "unorganized album" is a way to identify someone, especially if they release tidy albums later.

"Hey, I remember the clusterbucks you made of the last three albums, but these last four sound so much better!"

As you see with the above sentence, you can be identified by things that are or aren't well-received, but here's a question: Would you rather go unnoticed because even BTS people get noticed, they just don't get all the attention the people infrony of the camera or onstage do! I'm a BTS person myself and I don't want recognition either, but I won't necessarily decline the gesture if I do get recognition because it just means I identified with somebody in some way; however, I might because the real reward was me connecting with somebody.

Middleman


A banjo.

But dueling banjos say it much, much better:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8

An artist that can actually write, play an instrument and sing with out the use of Autotune...that would be unique.

Unique is simply getting something out to the masses that they haven't been inundated with yet.

Autotune was unique, made Cher hip again and also made T-Pain a somewhat-household name.  Now you can't get away from it in just about every pop song.

Unique is just a sound, or a mood, or a weird phrasing of lyrics, or an attitude that comes across. That Gotye tune is a great example of all four. But with success the imitators come out and we wil soon tire of that song as a result.

MakeShift


Exactly, James.

What was once unique is no longer unique. Uniqueness can have a shelf life if it is a gimmick.  Sometimes uniqueness can get you noticed, but it can also fade and change; then fall out of fashion.  When I think of artist that were unique and had longevity, their uniqueness was them just really being themselves.  As Danny had eluded too, to some degree, you just either have it or you don't.

Embracing who you are is the best bet.

But you can get if you don't have it if you want it! That's what's I'm saying and everybody here will most likely agree!


People tell me that I was born with the gift of music! While that gift was bestowed upon me - I didn't write my first symphony or arrangement upon birth! Then of course, there's the perfect (absolute) pitch thing and analysis things; yet, I wasn't doing that stuff (I don't think) before or after I was delivered (I was a pre-me, btw).


And maybe I didn't want this gift or tried to deny wanting it; however, being around it since birth -- well, while growing up, I intuitively accepted it! I can't sing (very well) nor can I play, but I can most certainly arrange whether or not my pieces are liked and analyze like most wouldn't believe. So yeah, I had it from the bestowed sense, but I had to cultivate, nurture and nourish it in the physical sense and I still am!


ITA with your last sentence!

Rus W



Remember Tolkken, who wrote her first adult book? That was pretty much panned as the "Mrs. Hobbit" moniker won't wear-off any time soon; however, seemingly adults didn't like this book either. Having said this, you can't instantly jump out the box -- you can, but most people take gradual changes with a smile - moreso than abrupt one. There's nothing wrong with experimenting and in Tolkken's case, she may have a successful adult book or books one day.

Rus, I think you're getting your authors muddled there.. J. R R. Tolkien (a man btw ) wrote 'The Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings'..J.K. Rowling wrote the 'Harry Potter' books and just published her first adult book.

I think what makes a song unique is contingent upon the actual performance you are listening to at any given moment.

That's why music or songs can be played over and over again and still seem like there is a potential for it to seem unique.

If you seek novelty in composition or arrangement you will eventually learn that familiarity breeds contempt. That is what happens with all the exciting and novel music we get to hear on the big radio stations. It has a life cycle of seeming unique while gradually becoming ubiquitous. 

If you seek out great performances you will find that novelty in composition and arrangement plays a smaller role than performance with regards to what makes any one song seem unique to another.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion.



best regards,
mike

What makes a song unique?  Obviously, the copyright-able things....  melody and lyric. 

Every single songwriting seminar I have ever attended or watched on video says essentially the same thing....

You write about something common in an uncommon way.  Simple to say, extremely hard to do.

Take for example LOVE.... it's a very common emotion and experience. Tens of thousands of songs have been written on this topic, yet more are written every day, including here in the songs forum.  

To be unique, one must write about this common topic in a way that is uncommon, or different from every writer before. 

Using one's own personal experience is often the way this can be done. No one has ever lived YOUR experience. That said.... while your experiences may be different, you must be able to express this difference clearly and concisely,  combine it with a hook that is the memorable part of the song to most listeners, and then throw in a melody that is also different and yet easy to sing and remember. 

mike_mccue


I think what makes a song unique is contingent upon the actual performance you are listening to at any given moment.

That's why music or songs can be played over and over again and still seem like there is a potential for it to seem unique.

If you seek novelty in composition or arrangement you will eventually learn that familiarity breeds contempt. That is what happens with all the exciting and novel music we get to hear on the big radio stations. It has a life cycle of seeming unique while gradually becoming ubiquitous. 

If you seek out great performances you will find that novelty in composition and arrangement plays a smaller role than performance with regards to what makes any one song seem unique to another.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion.



best regards,
mike

The "Classical vs. Contemporary" argument. Say it ain't so, Mike! :) However, with the second part of that: I hear "Recorded vs. Live Performance." We've had this debate before, but again, the contempt that familiarity tends to breed is because of not want to suss out the differences or worse yet, the differences have to blatantly obvious!


Four people play Moonlight Sonata (disregard the actual dynamics and there placement)


The first plays in the piano (p) range
The second plays it in the mezzo-forte (mf) range
The third plays forte (f)
While the fourth plays fortissimo (ff)


Obviously, there isn't much in terms of arranging (dynamics) done on purpose to prove a point. People get so focused on the similarity, that they would notice if I put (or the performers) played in every possible range. Tell me you get it? People immediately note the repetitions, but somehow that sticks out more than the dynamic variance. Don't get me wrong because ears tire as does the mind after a certain point, but don't pretend the dynamics aren't affecting the piece. By the time, one gets to ppp, you're thinking: Thank goodness, it's over, but again, you're indifference or dislike for the obvious skewed nad interfered with the visibility of what wasn't!

Now, if this is a "Structural," tune, clearly, you want contrasts; however, they come in the form of subtle variations as flat-out obvious ones (ie: abrupt modulations as opposed to going into them smoothly) can be obvious. I'm saying they needn't be, just so you can say you clearly heard a difference and like it because you heard one.

This may be where the B section has bit more instrumentation though progression, it's identical to the A section. Or, a C section which is in/of the same key or one that's closely related (related to A and B) - not one that is way off in Timbuktu (although they do exist in songs).

While familiarity does breeds contempt, newness may breed more contempt or at least awkwardness because you don't what to expect or what you're going to do. So, perhaps you experiment - trying anything and everything, but then end up with a mess! Now, I'm not saying quit after the first few efforts, but the eagerness and awkwardness (as these are conflicting emotions) cause you to go back and resume your state of contempt or make you feel worse than you already were feeling.

Of course, you can use this to your advantage, but when you're not in the mood, you're not in the mood.

I don't disagree; however, in offering examples, do you see how I might be inclined to?