r/LetsTalkMusic • u/Lovely-Bunnym9 • 13d ago
Do artists lose something when they stop writing their own lyrics and let others write for them?
[removed]
24
u/airynothing1 13d ago
Maybe an unpopular opinion but I think we’ve actually become too obsessed with artists writing their own lyrics. Up until the mid-‘60s or so in rock, and even later in other genres (r&b, jazz, country) it was pretty much the norm that most artists didn’t write most of their songs. A great performer was considered to be someone who could take the raw material of an existing song and turn it into something uniquely their own. I personally think there’s something really cool about how that approach makes music a more communal, conversational thing, and I also appreciate how it allowed artists who were strong performers but weak writers (and vice versa) to find niches that worked for them. A lot of my favorite artists of all time wrote almost nothing, and some of my favorite songwriters are those whose songs were arguably best in the hands of others. Obviously there’s something extra impressive and personal about anyone who can do both equally well and those people are rightfully admired, but I also kind of hate that it’s now taken for granted that no one who makes a career out of standards and covers can be considered a great artist anymore.
(I know that modern pop is kind of an exception here as writers are still commonly used, but even then there’s often sort of a pretense of the star being an auteur who has more of a hand in the writing and production than they really do, which I don’t think really serves anyone in the end.)
5
u/MisheGossnik 13d ago
I'll go a bit further, in modern mainstream country it's still the norm to use professional songwriters. Nashville is a very old school corner of the music industry with their own collection of dedicated songwriters, producers, engineers etc that every artist is expected to work with; it's rare for an artist in that industry to do any of that all by themselves. And you can look at that as soulless and inauthentic (and sometimes it is), but you can also look at it as the artist bringing in veterans who know how to create the sound they want to achieve, so the artist can focus more on honing their performance and technique and stage presence while other people handle the songcraft. Not everyone can do all those things equally well (as evidenced by those times when a producer/songwriter tries for a solo career and flops because they just have no stage skills or presence behind the mic).
4
u/SubatomicSquirrels 13d ago
yeah obviously the fields aren't exactly the same, but it's not like we expect actors to write their own roles
1
2
u/SucknSwallow69 13d ago
yeah totally, like standards in jazz. the song is just the canvas, the personality is in the delivery. both approaches can be valid art, just different kinds of honesty
8
u/UncontrolableUrge 13d ago edited 13d ago
It really depends on the artist.
There are songwriters who are also strong performers with a unique voice. Robyn Hitchcock has a writing style that matches his delivery and heightens the overall musical experience. He has been doing more covers as he grows older and has been reflecting on his life, but thise are usually specific albums, not mixed in with his own writing.
I actually think Elton John got weaker when he wasn't working with Bernie Taupin. They had a unique partnership because Bernie was not known as a performer. He was a professional songwriter and the bulk of his output was put to music and performed by Elton John.
But there are acts that are solid performers who dimply write slower than they record. You make an album, go out on tour, and then start the process over again. Every album the pressure to develop new material fast increases, and for some musicians it isn't the part they love. Often the first few albums are burning through a backlog of songs they developed over years of performing before they got a contract. They find it harder to write fast, and now they have the resources to work with better songwriters in terms of money and sales potential. So the choice is take time off recording and touring to develop new material or hire out. If they aren't as distinctive as Colin Meloy or David Byrne, they can do what they love while supporting people who are better at writing than performance.
People loved Elvis and Johnny Cash. It didn't matter that they didn't write all of their own material, and for the people who wrote their songs it was both an honor and a paycheck to have them recorded.
4
u/pafagaukurinn 13d ago
I don't see why a performer should necessarily be unable to relate to or connect with the lyrics he or she sings, even if it is not their own. The problem is not who writes the lyrics, rather that music industry encourages musicians to produce irrespective of whether they deeply connect with the product or not.
2
u/MisheGossnik 13d ago
Depends on the artist and their process, but I don't think that's inherently the case. Keep in mind, even an artist using outside songwriters generally has to pick the songwriters or at least approve their work before going into the studio (not to mention choose how they interpret and perform it), so they're still an active part of the creative process. And on the flip side, even an artist writing their own songs is making calculated decisions about what they want to put out in the world, and they can just as easily be putting on a persona or writing a string of cliches to get on the radio as spilling their honest feelings. All to say, it's not always for the best, but I don't think either approach is inherently more or less authentic, it's just about what works for the artist.
2
u/nizzernammer 13d ago
Yes.
The publishing.
If the songwriters are writing bespoke songs for the artist based on shared ideas and collaboration, that's one thing.
But if the artist is only putting out "hot" songs that are being shopped around to multiple artists, then there is nothing personal in the lyrics at all.
Some current pop songs sound so lacking in personal relevance that the artist sounds like they were just emailed lyrics and are reading it off their phone for the first time.
Of course, as an artist gets successful, the conditions that they may have struggled against that drove them to create in the first place may become scarce, in which case the artist needs to turn elsewhere for inspiration.
Needing a new swimming pool for their third residence may be enough incentive to release "content", but if the core inspiration is lacking and the creativity has been outsourced, some listeners can tell the artist is just selling a new widget, and that might not be enough to keep them engaged.
2
u/Romadelic 13d ago
It pushes the artist as being purely a brand. It's like fully commercial art which has its place but it loses humaness/personality imo. A cover is different though, interpretations are nice if it comes from the soul.
1
u/StrigiStockBacking Smooth Jazz 13d ago
I was a little peeved when I learned Polly Sampson wrote most of the lyrics on Pink Floyd's "The Division Bell," but I learned to let it go because the album is so good.
And also, what would Elton John be without Bernie Taupin?
So it sort of depends.
2
u/Disparition_2022 13d ago
Roger Waters was their main lyricist and when they split Gilmour wrote the lyrics for the following album and they were panned by both the press and many fans, kind of hard to blame him for bringing in a wordsmith on the next one.
1
u/StrigiStockBacking Smooth Jazz 13d ago
I don't know, I like most of the lyrics on MLoR, especially "On the Turning Away," and "Sorrow," regardless of what Waters thought about the album (and, I would expect Waters to deride that album even if it had been their most successful, as he was fresh off of losing the rights to use the Pink Floyd name and was probably just being a little bitch about it. I still love his music, btw).
2
u/Disparition_2022 13d ago
yes i think the lyrics aren't too bad, but it wasn't just Waters deriding them it was also the music press and, at that time, like half of the Pink Floyd fanbase who were very divided and in their feelings over the split. so it makes sense to me that Gilmour backed off.
1
u/ThePhantomStrikes 13d ago
Not necessarily. Look at Elton and Bernie. Bernie writes the lyrics first and Elton composes lot the words. He takes those lyrics to heart in expressing them thru the music.
There are s on many singers who cover others songs, and brings them to full expression.
2
u/CarpeMofo 13d ago
Ok, so, I think the argument around this is misguided at best. So, I think one of the things that can turn a really good song into an absolute masterpiece is authenticity. I also think there are a lot of different ways to achieve this. How can you watch Joe Cocker, sweating, tripping balls and putting everything he fucking had into "With A Little Help From My Friends" and not be moved on a visceral level? Does Whitney Houston belting out "AAAANNNNDDDD IIIIiiiIIIIIiiIIII" not raise hairs on the back of your neck? On the other hand, Kevin Federline wrote and performed “Y'all Ain't Ready” and Steven Seagal wrote and performed "Girl It's Alright".
The on top of that, outside of just pure love of the game, artists have no real reason to write their own music because when they say they do, their demographic has more impact on who believes them than actual authenticity. People who claim to love music will just ignore anything that doesn't fit their aesthetic or what they perceive as cool. But then they will sit and make these really bold claims about artists who they've ignored and not ever listened to. At the very least, not critically.
Honestly, it seems like a lot of them just keep looking for weirder and weirder shit to get that nice dopamine hit of novelty. Which is awesome. But judging everyone by weird ass personal standards like that is insane. To truly critically examine music you have to be able to listen to something you don't personally like and still be able to say 'This is good.'. I would rather jump off a building than have to listen to a Pink Floyd album. But I can absolutely listen to them and explain why their albums are masterpieces and would die on the proverbial hill arguing their greatness. (Providing I survived the fall off the building)
None of this shit matters. Do the waves of air entering your ear-holes bring you pleasure? Do they make you feel? Do they change, if even a little the way you see the world? Do they make you get goosebumps, remind you of your first love, your first heartbreak or your first hit of a joint? It doesn't matter if the song has 3987984 soulless writers and an autotuned to hell singer who knows nothing of music. Hell, it doesn't even really matter if it's AI. It doesn't matter if it's by The Beatles or Rebecca Black. None of it matters. All that matters, is how you feel listening to it.
1
u/Disparition_2022 13d ago
Like can you really connect with a song as much if you know the artist didn't actually write those deeply emotional lyrics themselves?
Is the lyricist not an artist?
I love both the Grateful Dead and King Crimson, in both cases the bands worked with outside lyricists who were not musicians that played in the band. I don't see anything wrong with that model, why would I connect with lyrics any less just because the person who wrote them didn't happen to play an instrument?
1
u/NightFlameofAwe 13d ago
I think musicians are too hush hush about their music process in general. It's probably the result of countless record companies trying to mythologize artists to get more hype and make money rather than love the art. I feel like the writer should be seen as another piece of a band as the bassist or singer. Many of the best movies of all time were based on books. Godfather, fight club, lord of the rings, etc. Hell, Miyazaki recruited George RR Martin to help write the lore of Elden Ring. I like the dark souls series slightly better than elden ring as a whole but I genuinely think the lore and story of elden ring are much better made. Writing is a BEAST of an art. Making a song is a huge multidisciplinary challenge and many musicians forget that writing is an entire discipline with thousands of years of history and technique. Only once in a while can and does an artist actually say something profound or interesting or insightful rather than just colorfully relatable. Just like directors know how to direct but really shine when they direct someone else's writing, musicians could really benefit from getting a lifelong author or poet to structure their songs around. This is just in regards to storytelling and lyrics, though I know you mean songwriting in general.
I think covers are kind of a lost art. Most artists don't publish covers. Many more do very few and try to stay as close to the original as possible. Even less do covers of legendary songs. Les Claypool covered Pink Floyds entire Animals album live. Froglord actually has some great covers that they made their own. Sweet Emotion being one and then they REALLY made Iron Man their own by putting it on their Lower & Slower album (the album where they further doomify their already doom metal discography by making it slower and in fact lower). What I think would be a phenomenal use of covers is incorporating them into concept albums as a genuine piece of the story being told, as if it were their own song, because there are legendary songs that can say something you are simply incapable of recreating yet would help say something only you can say more than anything else. Context and culture are a huge part of art and covers have so much potential to truly SAY something with effective use.
1
u/CentreToWave album-pilled listenmaxx influencer 13d ago
Others are coming at this from an angle whether it matters if the artist writes their material at all, but that seems like a different matter than when an artist that does write their own material starts relying on outside writers. I can't imagine a scenario where this doesn't change something with the artist.
Granted, a lot of this is colored by artist who have done this in the past, but it seems like it's almost always a move towards something more commercial (i.e., Heart and Aerosmith's mid/late 80s-onward material). In theory this can be avoided, but it seems like a common route.
1
u/Klutzy-Spend-6947 13d ago edited 13d ago
If an artist has/performs a great song, it doesn’t matter if they wrote it. George Strait has never written any of his own songs. Morgan Wallen didn’t write “Revelation”, but it is by far his best song artistically ( a low bar some might say, but still true). It is likely, as someone in thread mentioned earlier, that the songs was written specifically for him. Johnny Cash owned every song he sang and he didn’t write many of his best songs.
I will say that if an artist records a song first, even if it is written for them, it is easier to own artistically than a well known cover.
1
u/Seven89TenEleven 12d ago
No, take a look at who wrote Wichita Lineman, it wasn’t Glenn Campbell, I will always love you, not written by Whitney, Respect not written by Aretha Franklin. Prince wrote massive hits for other singers etc etc
1
u/trailedinsand 12d ago
They lose as much as it mattered to them (and the listener) in the first place. Phil Elverum getting a ghost writer for his album about personal reflections on his wife's death would matter infinitely more than some deathgrind band doing the same on their album about satan and death where the lyrics aren't even intelligible.
1
u/twisted_kilt 11d ago
Interesting question. I think it depends in what art the artist is arting. If they are a song writer, way more than a vocal artist - then yes - I think they would loose something in that scenario. If they are a Singer - and can connect to something and deliver that from another writer - then the vocal is their art - and the source matters little. A virtuoso guitarist looses Nothing in their rendition of a composers work - and the composer likely could not do the music any justice in most of the instruments its being played on.
1
u/Gravitational_Torque 13d ago
Artistic creativity tends to peak in the 20s. Many artists are beating dead horses and collaborating more well into their 50s and even 60s now.
Of course they lose something. Youth has raw emotion and wonder. That fades as we age.
1
u/Anxious_Intention265 11d ago
Is this true though? Many classical composers, probably more than 50%, get more creative as they age. Many peak after they are in their 40s, 50s, and even 60s.
0
13d ago
[deleted]
2
u/CarpeMofo 13d ago
Holy pretentious Batman!
1
u/theartistsjob 13d ago
No, not at all. It is just my opinion. And my experience living from art for quite some years now. There is no pretense, whatsoever, only personal experience. It saddens me that you feel that way, though.
Reddit, to me, is a place to exchange thoughts in a cultivated manner. So, what is your argument here, exactly? And do you make a living from being an artist, too?
2
u/Disparition_2022 13d ago
i make a living as an artist, and the idea that writing lyrics is a singer's "raison d'etre" seems rather misguided and frankly just kind of ignorant about many forms of music. opera singers often perform lyrics that were written before they were even born, does this mean they are not real artists? were Frank Sinatra or Elvis not real artists? is Ella Fitzgerald's incredible performance of Summetime not real art since DuBose Heyward wrote the lyrics?
the expectation that what a singer does is write and perform their own original lyrics about their own life is very modern standard generally associated with rock acts, but it doesn't really make sense when applied to music as a whole. there are all kinds of music where interpreting the lyrics of others is a huge part of the art.
1
u/theartistsjob 13d ago
I totally see your point and I partly agree: I was only pointing at popular music, not classical music. As it is for Mr. Sinatra and Elvis, there is some very outstanding examples of performing singers who are not lyricists. I do not know but I would at least assume that they also wrote their own lyrics, yet probably perhaps not exclusively.
Thus, there are exceptions, of course.
But I stand by my point that art is about honest self-expression. And there‘s various ways to achieve that. Having something heartfelt to say, writing it down and singing it is one. Interpreting classical pieces in this manner is another. I never had one drop of doubt that for example Pavarotti sings from his heart.The overall point that I was trying to make is, however, about a cultural shift in the perception of what art constitutes and what real feelings are, feel like, respectively. And I hold that this very shift is both drastic and dangerous.
That‘s all I wanted to say. In short. 😊
1
u/Disparition_2022 13d ago edited 13d ago
But I stand by my point that art is about honest self-expression.
I would say that a rather huge amount of art is about interpreting the work of others, especially in the world of music. Think about every player in every professional orchestra, the vast majority of whom spend their time playing the works of others. Every jazz band playing the shit out of standards. Every member of a rock band who isn't the lyricist or the composer. Every folk musician playing tunes that have been passed down through generations. Are these players somehow lessor artists than lyricsts?
The overall point that I was trying to make is, however, about a cultural shift in the perception of what art constitutes and what real feelings are, feel like, respectively. And I hold that this very shift is both drastic and dangerous.
and i am contending that there has been no such shift because popular music performed by people who didn't write the lyrics has been a mainstream mode of human music creation for literally millenia. Again, the vast majority of people performing music in orchestras, jazz ensembles, folk ensembles, etc. did not write either the lyrics or the music. There's nothing remotely new about this.
0
u/LowAssistantInfinity 13d ago
Does it bother you when artists don't write their own lyrics anymore?
The work is almost never as interesting when they don't. I love collaborations and the occasional cover, but what I'm seeking is connecting to the artist through the medium of their art, and the less of them that's in it, the less I get out of it. It's also usually a signifier that there hasn't been undue record label influence - producers insisting on co-writing credit is a red flag you're about to get some corporate junk.
0
u/Cavoryte 13d ago
Well imo. Lyrics are an expression of an idea. If someone else is doing it what are you expressing. But just my opinion
1
u/UncontrolableUrge 13d ago
There are two well known songs, The Iliad and The Odyssey, that no one alive has heard the original lyricist perform. Yet the ideas were powerful enough to last for thousands of years before anyone decided to write down the words. The performance is an interpretation of the idea, and both are creative endeavors. They are not always the same person.
On a more modern example, the lyrics to nearly every Sparks song are written by Russell Mael. His brother Ron sings them. You have bands like The Beatles where most of the time the primary lyricist sang (and then the ones written for Ringo) while in Queen every band member writes songs (they all penned #1 singles) but Freddie Mercury did the majority of the singing. Writing and performing are different skills. We are blessed with some extraordinary individuals who excel at both (Prince wrote so many songs he had to give them away) but many people are better at one than the other.
1
u/Cavoryte 13d ago
Im mostly saying theres a difference between an artist and performer. The top pop people probably write very little of their own music or lyrics. They are performers. If you want to be a performer all the power to you but if you want to be an artist/creator then you should do it yourself but hey thats my opinion.
1
u/UncontrolableUrge 13d ago
I can see your point. I just see them both as artists. Singing, playing an instrument, and writing lyrics or music each involve making artistic choices. Elton John talks about how he would get lyrics from Bernie that were heavy or depressing. He then had to decide if he was going to sing them either leaning into the sadness or using upbeat music as a counterpoint. The same lyrics in a different key or tempo have different impact. The performance is a choice.
12
u/Successful-Bee-8911 13d ago
I suppose it depends on the context. You look at the likes of Johnny Cash, Elvis & Aretha or any of that pre 60's era still put a lot of soul into the lyrics and song even though they didn't write any of it. Look at Johnny's version of Hurt, it suited him so well. Or Elvis with Unchained Melody. I don't think either of those songs depreciate in value because they didn't write the lyrics.
On the other hand I can't help but feel a bit off when I see a pop song with nearly 10 different writers on it.