Songwriting vs production

[UndertheWire]

I nearly put this in the Press thread, but I thought it might be an interesting discussion. The blog is about good songs being stretched out during recording or in concert, but I think we could take it further by considering how much the arrangement contributes to the recording or performance.

I'm not a big fan of The Eagles but there are a few of their songs I quite like. I'd say my favourite is New Kid in Town. Quite a nice understated arrangement. Nice chords, nice vocals and some tasteful guitar and piano. A bit like something The Band might have done in one of their more laidback moments. But around three minutes and forty seconds something else happens. The song transforms into layers of vocals repeating a few phrases with a few variations here and there - and this all carries on for another ninety seconds - all oohs and aahs. By now I'm reaching for the fast-forward button. Everything I liked about the song is a distant memory. Why? Why did they have to do that?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...-vs-production

[chaim]

Although I consider chords part of the composition - not arrangement - I can see his/her point in regard to the vocal parts. New Kid In Town is one of the most perfect pop songs I have ever heard (composition, lyrics and arrangement), but the woohoo's at the end may go a bit too far. I have always felt that the ending is more "syrupy" than the rest of the song. Most of the arrangement is fantastic (Joe's keyboard parts, Don F's electric guitar) and the song itself is perfect.

In Take It Easy the woohoo's at the end actually bother me a bit. I'd prefer not to hear them. Perhaps a bit lead guitar could work better for me.

[UndertheWire]

I'm so familiar with Eagles songs, that it's hard to think of them being any different to how they are. I like the long fade-outs with all the "oohs".

For a non-Eagles example of a song that goes on too long, I think of an unreleased Max Carl track that was posted on the Glenn Frey youtube thread. Glenn is there in the vocals and he may have been the producer (it's from the mid-eighties). The song comes almost comes to an end at 2:30 and then again at around 3:29 but then it carries on to 4:12. When the song was recorded and released by someone else, it was done in 2:51.

Max Carl (with Glenn)

Jennifer Warnes (with Max Carl)

[chaim]

I don't think the NKIT fadeout is too long, but perhaps the vocal arrangement is a bit too "MOR" there.

I had a similar feeling with Joe's "One day at a time". Some of the background vocals ("ooooh, lalala" or something like that) went too far in the "nice, polished and utterly comfortable" direction for me. Although, unlike in NKIT, in that case it actually bothered me. It seemed to be a purely musical decision that cheapened the serious and important subject matter (IMHO).

Let me give another KISS example....

KISS had had four singers since the beginning, but in the 90's they seemed to really notice how well they can sing as a group. So they added a third harmony part to things that had originally a two part harmony. I can't explain this to those who don't know a bit of theory without using an instrument, but I give you an example you can listen to. Let's take the song Goin' Blind. There were originally two vocal harmony parts in the chorus, sung in 4ths. Sounding a bit Eastern even. (Or if there is a third part, I can't hear it)

Starts from 0:57 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZa6tpq6Wzo

KISS had NEVER played this song live, but in the the early 90's Gene and Paul performed it on MTV's Most Wanted. Here you can really hear how well the two part harmony in 4ths works in this song. Starts from 0:52 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSdEvGy-PXk

Since then whenever KISS has performed the song, they have added another harmony part (the 3rd, in terms of intervals). IMO this softened it too much, and it lost its edge. In this clip all three harmony parts can be heard very well. Starts from 0:36 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSzBBM58FK8

IMO bands sometimes do stuff because they can, although it may not always be what works best for the music.

[GlennLover]

I don't think the NKIT fadeout is too long, but perhaps the vocal arrangement is a bit too "MOR" there.

I had a similar feeling with Joe's "One day at a time". Some of the background vocals ("ooooh, lalala" or something like that) went too far in the "nice, polished and utterly comfortable" direction for me. Although, unlike in NKIT, in that case it actually bothered me. It seemed to be a purely musical decision that cheapened the serious and important subject matter (IMHO).

I agree about the "ooooh, lala"s on "One Day at A Time". They have always bothered me too. They sound too "bubblegum". However, I love NKIT the way it is.

[chaim]

I agree about the "ooooh, lala"s on "One Day at A Time". They have always bothered me too. They sound too "bubblegum". However, I love NKIT the way it is.

I love it too. The ending is "close to the edge" for me, but not quite there.
(I added quite a lot to my post after you quoted it)

[AlreadyGone95]

Count me as a fan of NKIT as it is, although it took several years to grow on me. (As a 10 year old, I thought it was boring. Now, I don't. )

I'm trying to think of some songs that I think go on for too long. Hole in the World is the Eagles song that comes to mind first. I love it, but the repeated chorus at the end is annoying at times.

[NightMistBlue]

Ditto for me what AG said; the song is perfect. Can one get enough of classic Eagles harmonies? No. That would be like saying it's too nice of a day outside, I can't take anymore.

[Funk 50]

I think the dragged out arrangements of songs is all to do with the album format. In the 60s, songs were short and snappy for the singles market. Short and snappy wasn't ideal for sequencing an LP or a 2 hour concert though, so tracks were extended. It got a bit silly when the 12" single became a popular format. The CD format only encouraged longer arrangements.

I presume songs will get shorter as the MP3 age takes hold and the 70s dinosaurs like the Eagles and Pink Floyd disappear. I prefer drawn out arrangements. The longest track I have is JM Jarre's ambient instrumental Waiting For Cousteau (46:54): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH2UxxdXAfg

Most of my albums are shorter than that. It's the "go to" track when I don't want any rhythm, melody or vocals. It has it's place.

Eagles tracks that drag on too long; Long Road Out Of Eden, Waiting In The Weeds, Busy Being Fabulous & maybe New Kid In Town
Eagles tracks that are too short; Outlaw Man, Tryin', Witchy Woman, James Dean, Doolin Dalton, Certain Kind Of Fool, Somebody, I Dreamed There Was No War, Business As Usual, Take It Easy, You Are Not Alone & The Long Run.
All in my humble opinion of course.

King Of Hollywood is about the right length but I can't believe they fade it out as Joe's taking it up a notch

Thanks for the topic UTW

[NightMistBlue]

It got a bit silly when the 12" single became a popular format. The CD format only encouraged longer arrangements.

I think drum machines and other sequencers also encouraged pointlessly drawn-out songs. I loved the Eurythmics but there were times during say "Be Yourself Tonight" where it seemed Dave Stewart left the machines running while he went out for a coffee. That would apply to a lot of mid-80s records IMO.

I think electronica may be even worse, but to be honest I can't bear to listen for more than a few moments