Be a songwriter, not a “soundwriter.”
“Beats.”
You want to make cool beats?
You want to make a song with a great beat?
Sure. We all do. We all talk about beats.
But what exactly are you after when you say you want a cool beat? Or a great one?
Do you mean something people can dance to? Something with a deep bass tone? Sub-bass?
Okay. Great. That might sound kind of neat.
But you have a song, right?
What I mean is, you have a fantastic song idea, but it just needs to be served by the cool beat you’re working on, correct?
Or wait…
Were you just…
Oh. I see. You were you just looking to make loops of something that sounded cool.
That’s fine. That’s all well and good. But you aren’t exactly making songs.
You’re just making sounds.
Technology is partially to blame.
We’re in a unique era for music-making. Software has enabled anyone with a laptop and an index finger to create music on their computer in a quicker and more capable fashion than their talent should allow (trust me, I include myself in this). The nuances of timing and touch can be edited or automated with precision. Hyper-performances are created through the use of plug-ins and other VST. With limited application and commitment, anyone can be a “producer” or a “songwriter.”
While this sounds cynical, I don’t intend it to be. At least, not in the way it seems. I contend that this is a good thing. Or, it could be. More art. More music. More creators. Of course this is good. Of course.
Here’s where I am cynical: If we aren’t careful, we’ll let this impressive music technology push us into a direction that was never intended — the creation of sounds in lieu of actual songs.
What is a song?
To be clear, here’s Merriam-Webster defines a song (if you disagree, take it up with them):
a. short musical composition of words and music
b. a melody for a lyric poem or ballad
If we are just making loops of beats and dropping in cool synths or (midi) guitar riffs, we may end up with an interesting or appealing collage of sound. But that won’t be the same as a song.
So sure, we can dick around with limiters and compressors and eq and echo and reverb and envelops and filters and all that stuff. Because it’s easy to do. If you push the tech around enough, you can shape sounds into something unusual and interesting, which might be pleasing to the ear because of it’s novelty. But, ultimately, it very likely won’t be something a listener can connect with on a deep level the way a song would allow for.
If you have a cool idea for a beat, or if you are using some new patches that have a sound no one else can match, that’s awesome. If you’ve warped a certain synth sound into something that sounds partially robotic and partially etherial — that’s sweet. I can’t wait to hear it. But use it within the context of a song. Marry it to a sequence of chords or lyrics and melody. Even if you don’t have lyrics, at least find a melody. Melodies are quite memorable — an impact that will naturally lend itself to the song as a whole.
Collaborate.
If chords and music theory aren’t exactly your strength, that’s fine. They doesn’t have to be. But find yourself a true “songwriter.” These are often musicians who are proficient with a guitar or piano and can use those instruments to compose. They can structure a verse/chorus pattern, work out a musical bridge or other musical interlude to add in as well. However, they may not have the technical skill to “produce” those songs which (assuming you’ve been working in your DAW for a while) you probably have. There’s no shameful concession in collaboration. In fact, that’s one of the benefits of this technology, right? More collaboration.
So, if you’re thing is finding that next amazing sound, that’s a worthy passion to have. However, use that skill and drive to create songs. Sound alone isn’t enough to create a lasting impression. Anyone can loop a beat for 2 and a half minutes and call it a “song.” But we don’t remember them. Don’t be that person. Without a “song” to support your “sounds,” you’re simply cheapening or diluting your talent.
