What Makes a GREAT song?

[henryrobinett]

This is a question I've muddled over for many years. I don't think there's a definitive answer, but many and many of the answers are probably personal.

 

I've been muddling over this one lately because I've been once again listening to OLD standards. I think there was a time, long past, where great songwriters had their hayday. The golden age. You may say there were several golden ages for song writing.

 

Is it important to judge how great a song is by it's passing the test of time rule, and if so how long is long enough? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years or more? Or is that just when it passes from being merely a great song to being a classic?

 

Are there different categories of classics?

 

When the significance of an era wears off will the viability of certain songs disappear? In other words will music of The Doors be valid when the boomers are long, long dead? Are the boomers and their legacy the only thing that's still propping up some music?

 

Is melody still significant in determining how great a song is? The chord structure?

 

Are the lyrics the main force that determines the worth of a song? In other words can you listen to a great melody and chord progression but it has little meaning for you emotionaly unless the words have significance? Can you have a great lyric and nothing substantial musically and it be a great song?

 

Do you think we are losing our ability to write or understand great songs or are songs getting better and better?

 

What should a great song do? What effects should a great song have? Can such a thing be generalized? I mean should it make a person think, see pictures, reflect, cry, smile, dance, sell products?

[Dak Lander]

Whoa Henry...

Deep stuff my friend.

The time test has to be who is still listening to the song 50 years down the road.

Classics can, and should be in any and every genre.

The significance of a great song will vary as to how society, as a whole varies. Some will always be relevant.

In my poor, simple way of thinking, the melody is primary to the chord structure, lyrics not withstanding.

 

The melody is one of the most important parts of a song but won't have the meaning without the lyrics. So, in essence those two features of a song, in my mind, are equal.

Great songs are still being written. The percentage of great songs versus mediocre, or poor, songs has lessened.

As to what makes a great song...

So individual, isn't it?

To me, a great song must sound very good, with great rhythm, great lyrics and makes you FEEL. Whether it be laugh, cry, get angry, or what ever. It must have a response, along with the great lyrics and melody.

Now, That's A Song!

[Guest Room Warrior]

A great song has three main components:

 

1. A lyric that tells a story, evokes a feeling or creates a mental image... not by telling the listener, but by showing them (in the same manner as good fiction).

 

2. A melody that supports and reinforces the meaning of the lyric.

 

3. A chord progression that sets the stage for the lyric and melody and enhances the effect of both.

 

A song can be as sophisticated or as simple as you like and still possess all three qualities. Examples: "Cry Me A River," "Charade" (the Johnny Mercer song, that is), "I Think It's Gonna Rain Today," "If I Had A Boat" (the Lyle Lovett song), "Witchita Lineman," "Pearl of The Quarter," "Day In, Day Out" (another Johnny Mercer killer), "Tear My Stillhouse Down" (Gillian Welch), "Across The Universe".... see what I mean?

 

Jim Bordner

[DC]

For me, a great song only has to do one thing; it has to get emotion out of me. All this talk of lyric sorta messes with a lot of classical which gives me tons of emotion (some of it that is).

 

A rocker might make me want to get up and move, a sad song might make me feel that, a song might just put me in a mood whenever I hear it. Doesn't matter what the feeling is, if I get emotion out of it, it's a great song.

[D_dup3]

I must agree with Dak & DC that the primary criteria is the emotional connection any music/lyric makes with listeners.

 

All other considerations (musical quality, etc.) are secondary if the song doesn't "stick with you" & are, to some degree, arbitrary.

Most fans of Hank Williams, for instance, are going to dig Schubert.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Dak Lander:

The melody is one of the most important parts of a song but won't have the meaning without the melody.

So what you're saying is is that melody is kind of important?

You meant to say lyric is one of the most important parts . . ., right?

 

But what is a **GREAT** song? I don't know. Is everyone telling me about just really GOOD songs?

 

I've been working on some arrangements of old tunes that wipe me out. Gershwins "Somebody To Watch Over Me". Hell, that's one great tune. Someone may not even like the lyric because, for a woman singing it, it might be a little to "lamb lost in the woods" helpless, I need a man, type thing. But yet and still; even so it's STILL a great tune.

 

I don't hear tunes of that caliber, anywhere any more. OK, so melody like that is out of fashion today. No one besides those Disney guys writes songs with chords progressions chock full of diminshed chords. Flat nines are only found in jazz and some movie music these days.

 

Back in those days lyrics were great but commercial and campy, perhaps. But so artfully done. Cole Porter's "Cheek To Cheek" or "Just One Of Those Things" or "Skylark". There was a sense of a literate public and a sense of a literate lyric. In modern culture a few have taken on and existentially gone beyond into self centered realms and artistic extremes, redefining the world of the lyric like Dylan and Joni.

 

It seems that in recent generations we HAVE had some great songwriters; Lennon/McCartney, Wonder, Hank Williams. But Kurt Cobain? Please. Or was he really? Bridge Over Troubled Water was a great song.

 

Because a song is outrageously successful does that make it a great song? Is "Margaritaville" a great song? Or REM's "Losing My Religion"? Melodically it's a drone.

 

It seems to me songs are getting worse and worse. There's no understanding of a real melding of melody, chords and words because there's so little understood of melody any more. This isn't necessarily the fault of the songwriters. The songwriters write what will sell. And songwriters are a virtualy dead breed anyway. The performers have become songwriters whether they can write or not.

 

I apologize for my old mold viewpoints. I don't intend to sound like a bitter Rosemary Clooney, who probably wasn't bitter anyway. I just want to know what folks think make a great tune or song. I know or have some idea for myself.

[Jedi]

I think I know what you're driving at, Henry. Can Cobain's "Smells like Teen Spirit" compare to "Lush Life" (forgive me I forgot the authors name). My answer, it most definitely can. For me, a "great" song can transcend time and space. A listener can actually transend time, space, even thought when experiencing this music. The gray areas come in when something can transcend space and time for one, and not the other. The reason I would argue "Smells like Teen Spirit" is a great song, because(for me) it transcended the genre, the sound of the record itself. I was totally captured by the moment when listening to it for the first zilloin times. That's a freakin' great song. Take Marley's, "No Woman, No Cry." Now, you can hate reggae, hell you can hate Jamaica, Marley, the Wailers, all of it, and would be hard-pressed to deny the emotional connection when hearing that tune. That is what I mean, the song transcended the times it was recorded, it transcended its genre, it transcended its medium( i.e. the artist), it transcended everything we hold onto. That's a great song for me. Something that goes beyond the realm of the good song.

 

I hope this makes sense,

 

Jedi

[Dak Lander]

DUH!!!!

[Kendrix]

Prosody is the word that describes the mutually re-enforcing nature of words and music in a song. This is key.

 

To me there is a critical balance between predictable/familiar sounds/melodies/chord progressions and contrast/surprises that keep things interesting.

 

The lyrics need to balance internally focused statements ( e.g about what is felt/what youre thinking) and descriptive statements (that allow you to paint a picture in your mind).

 

All of the above must contribute to the emotional connection which is the ultimate goal.

[superclock]

I think to overanalyze the components of a song is to steal its soul. A great hook is what makes a song great. And yes, if a song is hugely successful it is a great song. That's because it appeals to a vast audience, and touches each and every person in a different way. It doesn't matter what the genre is, how old the writer/performer is, or how old the song itself may be. It all boils down to one thing: if it makes you keep singing it over and over in your head. The hook. Like Blues Traveler says "The hook brings you back."

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by jbartunek:

And yes, if a song is hugely successful it is a great song. That's because it appeals to a vast audience, and touches each and every person in a different way.

So the Macarena is a great song?

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by dblackjedi:

I think I know what you're driving at, Henry. Can Cobain's "Smells like Teen Spirit" compare to "Lush Life" (forgive me I forgot the authors name). My answer, it most definitely can. For me, a "great" song can transcend time and space.

Hmm. Really? I mean REALLY? Can "Smells Like Teen Spirit" cross generations and cross the performance? I mean can a host of other artists cover the song in a variety of ways and still maintain the essence of the song?

 

I just heard what sounds like a back to her roots Dolly Parton doing "Stairway To Heaven" and I thought it was wonderful. I don't know whether or not it was her, because I haven't heard enough of her, really, but it breathed fresh air into a song I thought all the air had been sucked out of. Real roots music version.

 

When I hear a lot of music like Nirvana I think it may be a great song but can other people do it? For me that's a test. Is it the performance or is it the song. Like another thread.

 

I love Voodoo Chile and Little Wing and as great songs as they are, even though others have covered them, to me they aren't

GREAT SONGS in the classic sense, IMHO.

 

BTW Billy Strayhorn wrote Lush Life when he was something like 17. This was before he teamed up with Duke Ellington. The mature subject matter belies his young years.

 

Interesting, barely relatable thought: communism gave us more than we bargained for in Western society. The proletariat raising up with a voice. The sense that anyone can write music, appreciate music and art, regardless of training, status or education. But along with this rising of the the common folk; the right of anyone to create music; anyone to make a record, often regardless of talent or ability, necessarily reduces the standard by which we judge music. The quality goes down. The field is extended so no longer are the Gershwins, Harry Warrens, Rogers, Porters, Holland, Dozier, etc. relevant or even valued to the same extent.

 

BTW I'm no communist. But I DO have my flame suit on.

[Lee Flier]

I dunno. I think it's a valid thing to say that what makes a song great is the ability to stand on its own regardless of arrangement... but I also don't think a great song HAS to be defined that way. A lot of great songwriters have written from the perspective of being in a band, and therefore they have their bandmates in mind when they write. In other words, in some cases the performance DOES make the song, and the genius of the songwriter lies partly in the ability to play to the specific performers' strengths. Not a thing in the world wrong with that. It's just a different KIND of song than a "standard" that has been performed by hundreds of different people, but it could still be a great song.

[whitefang]

The reasons that make a song great are as varied and complex as the people who think they're great.

For years, folks have made a big deal out of the

song that was the theme of "Laura", the Dana Andrews/Gene Tiereny flick. I hated it. That was, until I heard a solo guitar version by Earl Klugh (there I go again with Klugh!). I love that version. So, is it great? Hmmmm....

 

I was born in 1951, and "grew up" with what we call Rock'n'Roll, but I've always noticed "great songs" from other decades and genres. Someone earlier mentioned some good Mercer tunes, and tonight I heard "Tangerine" in the background of some old movie. One of MY favorites, and most treatments of it haven't spoiled it for me. The timeless qualities of some songs are undeniable, it's true. But what gives them that quality is hard to nail down. Smells Like Teen Spirit might be somebody's wedding dance. And they'll die thinking it was the greatest song in the world. For most of us, though, melody has to play a part. What good is excellent storytelling that grabs your heart and soul if the music it's over makes you grab your ears? You ain't gonna hear them THAT way!

 

Besides, most of the timeless greats are songs even the musically untrained can walk around humming, aren't they? Most artists like to think great art can only be appreciated by other artists, but I've always felt music had a more democratic appeal.

 

Whitefang

[superclock]

I think a lot of the time a performer will write a song that is entirely within the parameters of that performer's abilities. Maybe that's the case with Nirvana. I guess it would be weird to hear Dolly Parton try to remake "Smells Like Teen Spirit", but God knows Tom Jones will try!! Sorry, just a joke. I think the Macarena is a great song so don't beat me up if you see me in the playground! It's just that creativity is such a wonderful, mysterious thing that when we attempt to categorize, and analyze it to death it will ultimately escape us. It's kinda like sociology: to ask a species to give an objective perspective of itself is ridiculous. We can only work from a point of reference. My feeling is that deep down most songwriters want recognition for their songs. Many of them will trash other songs because they are too banal, not banal enough, too deep, etc, in order to validate their own material. They use other songs as a point of reference to make their case. Just because a lot of people like a song also doesn't mean it's a bad song. Who's to judge creativity anyway? We really don't even know where it originates. Is it God, some higher power, some really good weed, some really bad weed, booze . . . who knows. Maybe this entire forum is an exercise in self-importance. He who acts more like an expert must be one, right? Hmmm. I'm suspicious.

[Griffinator]

Let's see. By the definition laid out above, all those songs that invoke anger and resentment in me (because I hate them so thoroughly) are destined to be classics?

[superclock]

Yes. Does that provoke more anger and resentment?

[Griffinator]

no, just apathy and resignation

[fantasticsound]

It's got to have a beat so you can dance to it...

 

I believe guitar bands are on their way out, as well. Must be a sign of inferior music.

 

Originally posted by Kendrix:

Prosody is the word that describes the mutually re-enforcing nature of words and music in a song. This is key.

 

To me there is a critical balance between predictable/familiar sounds/melodies/chord progressions and contrast/surprises that keep things interesting.

 

The lyrics need to balance internally focused statements ( e.g about what is felt/what youre thinking) and descriptive statements (that allow you to paint a picture in your mind).

 

All of the above must contribute to the emotional connection which is the ultimate goal.

So there must be words? Psst... someone should point this out to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and other classical composers. Many of their finest works that are considered great, have been popular for hundreds of years, and are both familiar and contrasting have no words at all.

 

Me, personally, in modern music.. I'm looking for all the things Kendrix mentioned.

 

However, we often forget that you can't always pin down exactly why a piece of music and lyrics appeals to so many people, especially over time. Critics and music lovers will state their opinions. There will be those songs that continually evoke applause from masses of people. But nailing down what separates good songs from great ones may always be unknown or unknowable. Let's not forget that many of the greatest art objects and music were unappreciated in their time. Sorry, Henry.

[Guest Room Warrior]

What the great classical composers wrote was certainly music, but rarely a "song," which I think we all define as music with lyrics (i.e., something people can sing).

 

"Laura." Holy God, there's another one. Just hear in your head for a moment the line that goes, "And you see Laura... on the train that is passing through..." and see how Johnny Mercer creates a picture of the unattainable mystery girl with just a handful of words... how the Ouija-board melody creates a sense of longing, and how the harmony makes that longing bittersweet. THIS is "great" songwriting.

 

You can talk all day about "soul" and "emotion," but it takes hard-nosed craftsmanship to write a great song that gets that soul and emotion across to the listener.

 

I'm really not trying to sound pedantic, but this subject is very close to my heart.

 

- Jim Bordner

[henryrobinett]

Lee wrote:

I think it's a valid thing to say that what makes a song great is the ability to stand on its own regardless of arrangement... but I also don't think a great song HAS to be defined that way. A lot of great songwriters have written from the perspective of being in a band, and therefore they have their bandmates in mind when they write. In other words, in some cases the performance DOES make the song, and the genius of the songwriter lies partly in the ability to play to the specific performers' strengths.

True. Duke Ellington wrote this way. Most any BAND that's been together any significant length of time does too. But if a song exists only in the performer; if this performer is the only one who can pull it off, I'd suggest that it's the performer/band rather than the song. In this case the song may be a great vehicle for the band.

 

I used to be in a band that had a "great" singer. This guy was Mr. Charisma. Very intelligent and an ENTERTAINER in a very hip way. Energy plus. He was so talented no one was bothered by the fact that he was butt ugly or fat as Chris Farley. Got plenty of women too. The band didn't even realize that he couldn't sing until we went to a recording studio for the first time. It was amazing. None of that charisma came through the monitors, not enough to hide. Performance is key.

 

I think a song has to exist on it's own. Like in the old Brill Building days. You had to be able to hammer out a song on the piano and have it translate something. These guys, try as they might, weren't performers.

[Kendrix]

QUOTE]So there must be words? Psst... someone should point this out to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and other classical composers. Many of their finest works that are considered great, have been popular for hundreds of years, and are both familiar and contrasting have no words at all.

 

Hey Fantastic,

Semantics....

My definition of a "song" is that it includes words and music. I agree that there is alot of great music out there sans lyrics - I just dont call these pieces "songs".

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

There will be those songs that continually evoke applause from masses of people. But nailing down what separates good songs from great ones may always be unknown or unknowable. Let's not forget that many of the greatest art objects and music were unappreciated in their time. Sorry, Henry.

I tend to believe in the knowability of things. And I totally agree that many great works of art weren't acknowledged in their day. Van Gogh is the perfect example. But I also don't necessarily believe that a work has to be popular over time to be great. I'm not sure why you're apologizing to me. I don't think it necessarily has to be popular at all to be great. I certainly don't think the "Macarena" is great or "I'm So Dizzy" or "I'm Too Sexy".

 

BTW Ode To Joy was a great Beehtoven song and has been popular for 100s of years. Many arias have been excised from operas and been made into songs also for 100s of years.

 

I think a great song has to have a high aesthetic component. It has to have a highly developed sense of craft with an emotional underpinning, but is ruled by an strong aesthetic/artistic sensibility. It has to hit people in this realm of what seems unknowable because it's on a higher plane. But it also hits them in the area of what is knowable and familiar: scenes, emotions and perhaps something that may be readily understood and able to be sung and/or grasped in some way.

 

Hmm, I don't know.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

But if a song exists only in the performer; if this performer is the only one who can pull it off, I'd suggest that it's the performer/band rather than the song. ...I think a song has to exist on it's own.

But that's just it - what if a songwriter deliberately sets out to write something that he/she KNOWS is meant only for a particular performer to play and that no one else could pull it off? I'm not talking about "performance value" as in entertainment, like your singer friend. I'm talking about specifically the way some people play. Like obviously Keith Moon and John Entwistle really inspired Pete Townshend to write in a certain way, and he knew no one else could pull off those drum and bass parts but that is part of what makes the SONGS great. Other people COULD do Who songs, but there's no question Townshend wrote those songs for those people, and that is part of his genius as a SONGWRITER. A lot of classical composers did this too. There are violin or piano solos that were written specifically for a contemporary of the composer, because the composer knew no one violinist or pianist could pull it off, so writing specifically for that person was the only way to stretch their compositional "chops" so to speak. Know what I mean?

 

Not that this takes anything away from the Brill Building writers either, it's just that I think they're two different equally valid expressions of songwriting craft.

[koolkid]

actually theres no semantics involved iat all, a song by definition contains words and music

[henryrobinett]

I've always considered that a song was to be sung and a tune was to be whistled. Song has words and a tune does not. I don't know whether this is true or not. It's just the way I thought. Yet I do also consider I write instrumental songs. Go figure.

[Griffinator]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

But if a song exists only in the performer; if this performer is the only one who can pull it off, I'd suggest that it's the performer/band rather than the song. ...I think a song has to exist on it's own.

But that's just it - what if a songwriter deliberately sets out to write something that he/she KNOWS is meant only for a particular performer to play and that no one else could pull it off? I'm not talking about "performance value" as in entertainment, like your singer friend. I'm talking about specifically the way some people play. Like obviously Keith Moon and John Entwistle really inspired Pete Townshend to write in a certain way, and he knew no one else could pull off those drum and bass parts but that is part of what makes the SONGS great. Other people COULD do Who songs, but there's no question Townshend wrote those songs for those people, and that is part of his genius as a SONGWRITER. A lot of classical composers did this too. There are violin or piano solos that were written specifically for a contemporary of the composer, because the composer knew no one violinist or pianist could pull it off, so writing specifically for that person was the only way to stretch their compositional "chops" so to speak. Know what I mean?

 

Not that this takes anything away from the Brill Building writers either, it's just that I think they're two different equally valid expressions of songwriting craft.

Nope. Can't go for this at all, Lee.

 

If anything, classical composers found themselves forced to restrict their compositions to what was actually feasable. People like Bach and Beethoven often wrote pieces that pushed the limits of what an orchestra could accomplish, but those limits also limited them as composers. The only thing they gained from knowing of a particular instrumentalist was knowing that, indeed, some of the things they heard in their heads could actually be "pulled off", and so it freed them further to push into the outer limits of human dexterity...

[Griffinator]

P.S.

 

Maybe that's the ultimate problem with modern rock music - people don't write songs that push those limits - if anything, people write songs that stay firmly within their own comfort zone as a bassist/guitarist/singer, and therefore the songs remain absolutely droll and simplistic, so as to make things easy for the performer...

[Guest Room Warrior]

I have to agree with Lee, even in the aspect of classical composers. Mozart, for example, wrote arias specifically for the peculiar vocal tricks of a given singer he was to work with... any composer who was writing for that singer would end up writing arias in a very similar style, and would be told to re-write if the singer wasn't happy.

 

Still, comparing an operatic aria to a modern pop song is apples and oranges. I think when the topic asks "what makes a great song?", it is asking what makes a great song of the variety all of us here write.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Griffinator:

If anything, classical composers found themselves forced to restrict their compositions to what was actually feasable. People like Bach and Beethoven often wrote pieces that pushed the limits of what an orchestra could accomplish, but those limits also limited them as composers.

Well, it limited their "commercial" value, in that they couldn't be "covered" by a lot of different orchestras. That is the tradeoff. However it doesn't really say anything about the artistic merit of the piece. I don't think a great song should be judged merely by how many different people can perform it.

 

The only thing they gained from knowing of a particular instrumentalist was knowing that, indeed, some of the things they heard in their heads could actually be "pulled off"...

Exactly... but that can be very rewarding artistically... AND it can be a challenge for a writer and can display a particular genius when the writer and performer inspire each other. It takes compositional genius to write something for a specific performer that makes that performer really shine, I think that would qualify as a "great song".