Song writers: When is your song done? Is it ever?

[SongwriterFan]

My songs are mostly "done" very soon. I typically put out a "first work tape" on SoundCloud, then listen to it for a few days. After that, I may make a few changes based on what I'm hearing (or what some friends of mine hear).

The main changes are slight wording changes or melody changes that make the songs "sing better" for me.

I tend to edit my songs as I'm writing them (I've been told this isn't necessarily a good thing, as it limits creativity?) and I tend to "finish" my songs too early. At least based on what some pro songwriting friends of mine have said to me.

But who's to say who's right or wrong? I had a great songwriter (has 16 #1 hits to his name) critique some of my songs. The opening line is:

Grew up listenin' to Johnny Cash and George Jones
The music seared my heart, sent chills into my soul

I was told that I'd missed a great opportunity for a hard rhyme because I could've said "sent chills into my bones".

I thought about it . . and though I was embarrassed that I hadn't thought of that word, I stuck by my original wording. Why? First, I think a chill to the SOUL goes deeper than a chill to the BONE. Also, I much prefer soft rhymes . . as long as they are the right words. I'll "accept" a hard rhyme if it's the right word. The total opposite of most songwriters, I'd say . . . they'd rather get that hard rhyme if they can.

[FrankHudson]

"Done" might have different definitions.

Done, as in it's ready to take into a recording session or play in front of people.

Done, as in a fixed set of words and the basic harmony/melody settled.

Done, as in a fixed arrangement with phrasing, chord voicings, most everything nailed down.

To me the important done is ready to play where others might hear it. You want it to be good enough to carry some value there. But it doesn't have to be the only way to do it, or the perfect version for all time. I change up things I've composed after first public performance sometimes because I have a new idea or just have a different mood I want to express. Given my small audience that's not a big problem. Perhaps I'm comfortable with that in that I have attraction to the "folk process." When were songs like "Tam Lin" or "The Dying Cowboy" or "Rolling and Tumbling" done?

Bob Womack's quoting "Songs aren't finished, only abandoned" maxim is useful as some might delay giving us music of value because they think it can be done better if they just work out all the options and choose the best. Pick an option that seems to work, future versions can explore the options.

There was a good documentary released last year that explored the extraordinary history of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" based on a book that came out a few years ago. It's a good example of how finished or done is a slippery concept.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by blews

I'd say its never done.....it can be 99%, but it seems everytime I play or perform it I find a phrase / word, or tonal pitch or riff that I like better....it never ends, which is a good thing.....

Yes, indeed. Keep it fresh!

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

"Done" might have different definitions.

Done, as in it's ready to take into a recording session or play in front of people.

Done, as in a fixed set of words and the basic harmony/melody settled.

Done, as in a fixed arrangement with phrasing, chord voicings, most everything nailed down.

To me the important done is ready to play where others might hear it.

Same here. And it's the hardest part, too — sanding, polishing, smithing, practicing, memorizing, learning to put some heart into it. I probably have less than two dozen I can perform well. In fact, that's where I've been putting most of my effort in recent years, getting my tunes to where I can spring them on unexpecting audiences.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

You want it to be good enough to carry some value there. But it doesn't have to be the only way to do it, or the perfect version for all time. I change up things I've composed after first public performance sometimes because I have a new idea or just have a different mood I want to express.

Yup. And there are also the parts you stumble over and realize it needs a passing chord or some air or rephrasing.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Given my small audience that's not a big problem. Perhaps I'm comfortable with that in that I have attraction to the "folk process." When were songs like "Tam Lin" or "The Dying Cowboy" or "Rolling and Tumbling" done?

Heh heh. Never, and they never will be, right? The first time I heard Leadbelly's "Whoa Back Buck," I Googled it. Like "Rolling and Tumbling," there are countless variations, and they blur into other songs, like "Sugar In the Gourd."

So my version of "Whoa Back Buck" is a complete overhaul. Sometimes a cover is just a springboard into writing a song.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Bob Womack's quoting "Songs aren't finished, only abandoned" maxim is useful as some might delay giving us music of value because they think it can be done better if they just work out all the options and choose the best.

And funny thing, Hollywood has the same saying about movies.

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

Pick an option that seems to work, future versions can explore the options.

There was a good documentary released last year that explored the extraordinary history of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" based on a book that came out a few years ago. It's a good example of how finished or done is a slippery concept.

"Hallelujah" — Cohen's answer to "Angel from Margaritawheel"!

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

My songs are mostly "done" very soon. I typically put out a "first work tape" on SoundCloud, then listen to it for a few days. After that, I may make a few changes based on what I'm hearing (or what some friends of mine hear).

The main changes are slight wording changes or melody changes that make the songs "sing better" for me.

I tend to edit my songs as I'm writing them (I've been told this isn't necessarily a good thing, as it limits creativity?)

Hm. Wonder why. It seems like a creative thing to do. Banish the thought.

[QUOTE=SongwriterFan;7385263]and I tend to "finish" my songs too early. At least based on what some pro songwriting friends of mine have said to me.

I had a writing teacher who studied under Raymond Carver at the Iowa Writers Workshop. When something needed one more rewrite, he'd say, "Run it through the typewriter one more time."

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

But who's to say who's right or wrong?

You are. It's your song!

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

I had a great songwriter (has 16 #1 hits to his name) critique some of my songs. The opening line is:

Grew up listenin' to Johnny Cash and George Jones
The music seared my heart, sent chills into my soul

I was told that I'd missed a great opportunity for a hard rhyme because I could've said "sent chills into my bones".

I thought about it . . and though I was embarrassed that I hadn't thought of that word, I stuck by my original wording. Why? First, I think a chill to the SOUL goes deeper than a chill to the BONE. Also, I much prefer soft rhymes . . as long as they are the right words. I'll "accept" a hard rhyme if it's the right word. The total opposite of most songwriters, I'd say . . . they'd rather get that hard rhyme if they can.

Now, me, I wouldn't've changed it simply because someone else suggested it. I want my songs to be my songs.

Thinking back, there's only one word I've ever changed because someone suggested it. And it was because he was undeniably and inescapably right.

It's a chorus. It went:

Won't you be my queen of the road,
won't you be my one square deal,
won't you be my long-haul rider,
won't you be my driving wheel!

My friend (who sings it when we gig) said, "Not rider. Lover. Long-haul lover."

That's the right word, alright. It alliterates, and it's more direct. I should've spotted it in one of my twenty rewrites. So I just considered his suggestion good proofreading.

[Gordon Currie]

Done is a slippery concept for any artist.

I knew a painter decades ago, for them 'done' was when the canvas sold.
Until then, they could always change something.

My duo does a song we recorded in 1985.
6 years ago, we extensively revamped it, bringing the 'hook' down an octave.
It's now a show closer. We feel like we rescued it from obscurity.

Another song was 'done' in 1990, but never fully arranged. When we picked it back up in 2022, we changed the key AND the time signature (4/4 to 3/4).

Other songs have been updated at points, but usually smaller arrangement tweaks instead of added verses or structural changes.

In general, though, I prefer to work obsessively on a song until it is 'released' in some fashion.
After that, for any hour of my time, I would rather spend on composing something new or moving a work in progress forward, rather than perfecting the past.

[Rudy4]

For me, songs can take various forms, although most of them end up having a definite structure based on idea, development, and resolution.

Sometimes I start writing a song and the parts that cap it off don't immediately come to me. I set those aside and sometimes the final parts that complete the song don't come into view for years in some cases.

Songwriting for me is usually a process that either comes easily or gets archived for later.

I have had a number of songs that almost wrote themselves once the idea was conceptualized. Some of these end up being "time sensitive", so they work while a story is still fresh in the current cultural perspective. An example of that would be a song I wrote titled "Bernie Made Off With The Money". It was received well when it was written and performed but wouldn't hold as much interest today.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by jseth

Something I always "knew", but couldn't really put my finger on, was that every time I play one of my songs (or anyone's songs, for that matter), it is very much like a snapshot of that song, in that particular moment...

My thought exactly.

Originally Posted by jseth

This was really borne out when I recorded my first (and only?) CD... my budget was tight, so I did not have the time to "go back" and fix things... songs came out differently than what I was expecting, what I thought they were...

I just produced my first and probably only CD, too. The tunes sound nothing like how I perform them — but not in a bad way.

Originally Posted by jseth

I change the feel and groove of my songs frequently; sometimes I'll unearth an older song of mine and use an entirely different approach to it. Some songs are fairly well locked-in to a specific feel, though...

Playing a song in front of an audience definitely changes things... gives me a completely different impression of what the song is, what it might need...

Yep!

Originally Posted by jseth

I love jazz music, and while I would not categorize myself as a jazz musician, per se, I take the concept of that Art into every song I play... so, everything is fluid and changes from take-to-take...

Sure does! Thanks for posting.

[Headless Folkie]

As many here have said, for me, a song is never entirely done. There might even be years between any sort of changes, but I would never consider anything carved in stone.

The closest I can come to considering a song done is, "At what point will the song leave me alone?" When I get a particularly pressing idea, or I'm actually in the process of writing a song, it pretty much dominates any creative thought - nagging me until I reach a ‘done for now’ place - which, depending on the song, could be days or weeks or more. (Sometimes a single word can hang you up, seemingly indefinitely.)

In my early days, when I was part of a radio comedy troupe, the song would leave me alone after it was either performed live, or broadcast on one of our episodes. That was many years ago, though, and I haven't performed publicly for decades. So, for a while, when I started doing a bit of writing again a few years back, I didn't have any equivalent form of closure - until I started a YouTube account. The account doesn't give me any dreams of fame or fortune (as is evident by the level of recording quality I consider acceptable for my purposes), and I'm not really that concerned with how many people might listen to a new track, but once I post it, then, as when a song would've been performed live or over the radio way back when, I can tell myself, "well, it's out there, and there’s and no point in obsessing over it now.” At that point, I can walk away from it for the time being and free my mind for other pursuits.

(Having retired a year early as of January 1, and feeling pangs of guilt about how neglected my guitars have been these last few years, I'm hoping to do a bit of catching up with them – and perhaps if I'm lucky, the nagging might begin again.)



Meanwhile, I'm also surprised by the fact you saw in the Tele forum about writing WHILE recording. I [also a pen and paper person] can't imagine stepping forward into recording unless I was pretty much finished with the writing – perhaps a phrase or two that I didn't have yet, and hoped might come to me in the act of recording, but that's it.

[gwlee7]

When it comes to recording my songs that are getting ready for release, finished is better than perfect. But, I also like others have stated, believe that the recordings themselves are only snapshot of them at that time. I play them solo and with others and everyone has their own personalities. So, they turn out differently. I like it that way.

[Chipotle]

Man, y'all are wishy-washy! Just poking fun, but my songs do reach a final resting point. Even if there's a word or two that I felt I could have wrangled better, I don't go back and change it later. That's even more true after I've recorded a piece. It's as done as it will be, and I move on to writing the next one.

That's not to say that I don't vary the interpretation a bit when performing--I'll add a lick, repeat a chorus, occasionally tweak (or more likely just mis-remember ) a word or phrase. But I don't consider that changing the song itself.

I used to have bandmate who was "never done writing". We'd be performing a song we'd been doing for years, and one night he'd just start spouting lyrics or a tune we'd never heard before. After the set, we were always, "What the...?" He'd reply, "Well, I just didn't like it." Hmmm. Why'd you tell us the song was finished all that time ago, then?

[ghostnote]

Being a pen/paper/writer guy and a write-as-you-record guy don’t have to be two different things, because I’m always doing both of those things. Pretty much all of my songs are constructed using a combo of both methods. And no, even if one of them is considered complete, it’s never done. I’m always willing to add - or delete - something that’ll make it better. I have many songs that only have four or five tracks recorded. That’s enough to give me a solid framework to add to when I go back to them later.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Chipotle

Man, y'all are wishy-washy! Just poking fun, but my songs do reach a final resting point. Even if there's a word or two that I felt I could have wrangled better, I don't go back and change it later.

I've actually changed words while performing it, without even realizing it.

In one of my songs, the line I wrote (actually my co-writer did) is "lookin' here wonderin' what I'm doin' here".

I've been singing it as "sittin' here wonderin' what I'm doin' here" for so long that I didn't even know I'd changed it.

I only noticed it when I went to print lyric sheets for my songs that I'm recording next month. I thought about changing it back to the original words, but I just like the way it sounds now better.

[strangebloom]

Originally Posted by Charlie Bernstein

This came up in the Telecaster forum, and I'm wondering what AGF folks have to say.

A recent article desribed the Grateful Dead's original tunes as always being works in progress, changing, adapting, and evolving with every show.

Mine are never done. I often start learning and performing them when I think they're good, and sometimes I record them, too. But that doesn't stop me from changing them. If I think of a better word or a great new verse, it goes in. If I think of a devilish chord change, I keep it.

Whatever they're like at the moment is a snapshot — like an accountant's balance sheet showing finances at a particular moment.*

But in the Tele forum, something I didn't expect came up: Many — maybe most — of the forum members there said their songs were done when they were recorded. A lot of them also said that they write while recording, rather than writing first and then recording. I hadn't realized how DAW-dependent songwriting had become. Am I the only pen/paper/guitar songwriter left?

So tell me: Are your songs ever done? If they are, when are they done — when you've written them out, when you've scored them, when you've recorded them, when you're tired of them?

Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

---------------

*Boilerplate disclaimer: If I have a musical strength, it isn't my playing or singing. It's my writing. It's been a hobby since my '60s high school daze. Never been a pro, but I've had good fun being an amateur.

My songs are done when I like them. Usually at that point, I'm ready to move on to my next song. Rarely, I may change my mind about something... but most of the time, I'd really rather be done and write new songs.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by mawmow

The recent years have seen many long career artists revisit their own songs…

That is mostly due to the fact the '70s and '80s artist contracts only gave them a portion of the mechanical copyright royalties for the first seven years or so, after which the song became back catalog and all the mechanical royalties went to the label. That left the composer as the only person outside the label receiving royalties, unless, of course, the label also had a publishing company and grabbed the artist's rights at the start as well!!!

Re-performing the music and self-publishing starts a new royalty stream for the artist. It is also a reason why you see many artists putting out live albums later in their career.

Bob