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.

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!

If I could could quote your paragraph Danny I would but I cant! Thanks a bunch, the more I think about it the more I agree, at least if you follow your heart and it goes wrong you've nothing to regret, you go places your dreams have come true. Follow someone else's ideas, it goes wrong, big regret, goes right, your doing a 9-5 job with no passion!!! They are great words man, maybe if I trusted myself more then something even better and unique may come out.

Anyone feel that they have an obligation to nurture, share and cultivate their gift of music?
Even though its tough sometimes that you just gotta keep....going?!?! I understand that some have greater gifts than others.

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.

Rus W,

It seems like we are talking about different subjects here.  I was responding to the OP's original question of what makes a song unique.  I am reading into the question, that he is asking, what makes a song/artist sell or what makes one song/artist standout from another song/artist.

My first response was suppose to be a joke, a bit of sarcasm.  I guess the smirk on my face did not translate well across the screen. 

IMO, what makes a song or artist unique, it is sounding different than what is currently the norm at the time.  However, again, in my opinion, I think that difference, much of the time, is just how the artist naturally sounds.  It is "their" sound. Pick any artist that you can immediately recognize, for instance.  Let's take some one like Johnny Cash.  When you hear Cash on the radio, it is instantly recognizable as him.  What makes Cash unique as an artist, he has his own signature sound.  Petty, Van Halen, Stevie Nicks, BTO all have a uniqueness to them that are instantly identifiable.  It is also backed up with gobs of talent and great song writing. 

Uniqueness can also come from the instrument choices that you make and playing style.  For instance, EVH is instantly recognizable when he plays the guitar.  Again, it is "his voice".  The OP mentions the guitar solo in Beat It.  When the solo kicks in, it screams Edward Van Halen.

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

jamesg1213

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 screwed up the the English alphabet! *hangs head*

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. 

MakeShift


Rus W,

It seems like we are talking about different subjects here.  I was responding to the OP's original question of what makes a song unique.  I am reading into the question, that he is asking, what makes a song/artist sell or what makes one song/artist standout from another song/artist.

My first response was suppose to be a joke, a bit of sarcasm.  I guess the smirk on my face did not translate well across the screen. 

IMO, what makes a song or artist unique, it is sounding different than what is currently the norm at the time.  However, again, in my opinion, I think that difference, much of the time, is just how the artist naturally sounds.  It is "their" sound. Pick and artist that you can immediately recognize for instance.  Let's take some one like Johnny Cash.  When you here Cash on the radio, it is instantly recognizable as him.  What makes Cash unique as an artist, he has his own signature sound.  Petty, Van Halen, Stevie Nicks, BTO all have a uniqueness to them that are instantly identifiable.  It is also backed up with gobs of talent and great song writing. 

Uniqueness can also come from the instrument choices that you make and playing style.  For instance, EVH is instantly recognizable when he plays the guitar.  Again, it is "his voice".  The OP mentions the guitar solo in Beat It.  When the solo kicks in, it screams Edward Van Halen.

I get it because I hear those same snarky comments, Of course, there are the other things that go into this. And yeah, of course, the two "Mouse-keteers" I mentioned, specifically, the one wither the stronger voice (notice the unintended intended irony there). (Btw, perhaps I missed smiley somewhere).


However, the subject is NOT different, but touches on a different scope in a different arena, but it is not different. What makes you and me or anybody else unique as human beings? Everybody's got their own venacular, style-of-clothing, tastes in entertainment, etc, etc. I've echoed identification, but the artist has to find it or sort through what the listeners find in/for them. IOW,  one really just doesn't "have it." That's something a critic would say if s/he's looking for a specific client. If you've notice with AI and like shows after winners are picked or put on teams, said instruments vocals most often) are cultivated and harnessed for the definite yes or no. Rarely, do you get someone who doesn't need to improve in some vocal area.

Nobody is Mozart! If anybody can pull a symphony from nowhere (one's head), you'd have to be immortal basically, ironically Wolfgang wasn't; yet, his legacy is immortalized and this is how he's remembered. Don't get me wrong, this is an astonishing feat and accolade, but how many here and around the world can do that and be pleased with the result? Quite a distinct few in any at all.

If one can generate some kind of response, how ever they decide to do it -- even if it's no response at all (both in the good and bad senses)

I get the OP's question and have answered it; your sarcastic response I felt the urge to respond to.

I used the other mediums because the same question is asked: "What sells?" (at least in the US) and by judging from what we see and hear, it's blatantly obvious (Violence, Sex -- two very hot items -- Violence especially) However, audiences appears to be very content with being labeled and in niche groups.

I'm merely saying to consider the societal affect it may/will have -- even if it is one, you don't necessarily intended for it to have.

ie: Don't write a hit song or make a film about how society is messed up and expect to get more raves than rants. This is because this society is a self-loathing one, sadly!) I'm just saying be aware of the other issues you may bring up even if you clearly didn't plan to. And people love to tie media/entertainment to tragic events (Newtown and Kesha's "Die Young," Really, people?), (Not belittling what happened, obviously) She understood the pulls and rating plummets and was being respectful, but folks are so damn sensitive about everything these days! There's got to be some deeper, sick and twisted meaning to any and  everything!

However, society is quick to say how the media's messed up, but that's only because of what society feeds it. I'll use Kesha's Die Young again. Young people die every single day from adults to sadly, children or adults at the hands of their children; yet, you see this in media and society can't stand it! They're mad because the media (films) are telling them what they oughta hear. "The Creepy Kid" movies (Omen, Orphan, Bad Seed) or "Uber-Brat" movies (mirroring typical teenage behavior). Of course, you've got the abusive spouse/parent films, too. (What's Love Got To Do With It; Mommy Dearest and The Stepfather)

Now, if being ballsy and telling it like it is is you, then by all means; however, the masses -- er, the PC masses will try to shut you up! There are artists that do just that and don't care if they get flack, but I think all artists should think this way. Now, how this is said is up to them, but again, if you as the artist point out flaws on a societal level, knowing how society sees and loathes itself.

I'm only saying that there's a bigger scope that surrounds what the OP is asking! Many have said what I did in one word, but saying a song has a message isn't saying much. What is the message? From what angle are coming from with this message? Again, it needn't be deep and meaningful, but some do make those inquiries and want answers, even if it's "I'm not sure!" Yet, filmmakers of violent films could tell you all the subtexts, hidden plots and/or messages from a vast majority of different scopes which would really make the films less violent, but most only focus on that very small point and not the bigger picture; while yet, are able to dissect a soap/serial which may be even more violent than a feature film (assuming it's shown on cable)?

The answer's simple: People seek what they want to; therefore, they will either seek what is obvious or seek what is not obvious; as well as not see something that is there or see something that isn't.

These are things an artist (all media) has to consider. This isn't to say what one crafts should be sacrificed -- at least not to the point where you no longer feel like you're in the creation, but the artist still needs that relationship with his or her audience - no matter if it's a good or bad one (although they want the good ones mostly). Having said this, the audience shouldn't dictate the artist's next move nor should they show-off their "superiority complex," the audience is there to react and interact and that's it -- nothing more!

If anything, I'm giving the OP much more to think about while the song is being crafted because songs, ideas (musical and lyrical) moods, feelings, environments, situations, etc. (to spark these things) change as time passes. You never end up with what you started with! This goes for creating anything!! It's all part of the identification!

Again, Taylor writes about ex-bfs because she identifies with that and listeners (namely female) can relate because it's possible they've been through the same thing. If not, then they can at least have an unpleasant picture of what it would be like. This is akin to an alcoholic talking to another alcoholic about how hard it was/is to kick-the-habit because both parties can relate. Which is the most important aspect deemed by many artists. "I want the audience to feel what I felt! Live the experience I don't want to relive, but must to get over it and to show them that they can get over there situation, too." (sans a death, obviously) 

The beauty and ugliness of relationships - and all kinds -- not just love in the romantic sense or love period. There's Love/Hate, Pure Hate and Indifference (Hey, there's another idea for you, OP) Many people can certainly relate to that!!

Now, I hear what most would be saying: If the idea of relationships is used, how will it fit some particular genre, say, dance/techno/trance? It can work; however, what you need to do then is not force it or it most definitely won't work. (LG's "Love Game" despite it being about sex, love would still work despite the genre being atypical. However, it would make for a very interesting contrast and if done well, it could mesh together seamlessly! Still, the idea of relationships is still there, so clearly this would work moreso than you may think)

I'm just throwing out ideas (for perhaps your next tune) although, things could change with your current one. Or, take an original idea and twist it. "A new twist on an old favorite!" as they say ...

Ironically, in industries such as film/tv/music, it's all about the connections/relationships. Those you meet to get in; those you meet once you get in; those you meet when you leave.

That's what this whole post (in segments) is about!! Relaionships! There are just so many levels to scale and layers to peel way regarding them!

No sarcasm whatsoever, a hint of peevedness, but no sarcasm or anger and it's not towards anyone, here.

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?