Thoughts on outside writers?

What do you think if a song is written by people not in the band itself? Is it a lazy form of so-called "corporate rock" or a way for well-written songs to get exposure by being sung by a band who use their talent to interpret the song in their own way?

I generally give more credit to an artist who can write their own material, but if they have good taste and charisma, as well as technique, they can succeed at pulling off covers, sometimes better than the original or just as well, while being unique. That is something that gives singers the edge for material they didn't write themselves and makes it an artform all by itself. It's a combination of worth ethic, performance, and personality that savors whether people can be considered artists who have no part in the composing aspect.

The only time I don't like a band employing outside writers is when it's one of those larger bands (take three guesses who I'm talking about) who hype up a release talking about "stripping down and getting back to their roots." Hey, guys, if your roots involved four guys jamming in a room, don't hire outside writers to get back there!

Other than that, I think it's fair, but it's obviously more impressive to have a band of great players/interpreters who also write solid material. No shame if a band isn't capable of it though. That used to be the norm, lest we forget. You had the talented performer backed by a stable of songwriters. I believe it's been attributed to The Beatles the sea change to "Hey, we get paid double if we write our own songs!"

I have no problem with it. If the song is good, I don't really care who wrote it. If Alice Cooper does it, it's okay. Heh.

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with it. The only time I have a problem with it is when the one who didn't write the song pretends to have done so.

A perfect example of this is the song "Torn," by Natalie Imbruglia. That song was written by the band Ednaswap. Great little alt-rock band that unfortunately never hit it big. They recorded at least three different versions of "Torn," for their self-titled debut, then again Wacko Magneto and the Chicken EP. Each a different version, one more rockin', another more acoustic, etc. Did nothing for them, but clearly they knew it had potential to be a hit.

So they sold it. It was "popified," given an electronic backbeat and so forth, and BOOM! Huge pop hit! And Natalie Imbruglia claimed it was her song, talked about how she wrote it and stuff. So lame.

Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that annoys me.



The original version.

It happens even more than is documented. Sometimes, it's in artists contracts to have their names included in writing credits when they did little to nothing. It's also common for a ghost-writer to take a larger payout and publishing to leave their name off.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

It happens even more than is documented. Sometimes, it's in artists contracts to have their names included in writing credits when they did little to nothing. It's also common for a ghost-writer to take a larger payout and publishing to leave their name off.

Wow. I guess it's naive of me to think otherwise......but that kinda sucks. If I didn't write something; I wouldn't want to take credit for it.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

It happens even more than is documented. Sometimes, it's in artists contracts to have their names included in writing credits when they did little to nothing. It's also common for a ghost-writer to take a larger payout and publishing to leave their name off.

This!

A good example, Aerosmith's Dueces are Wild, which became a minor hit for the band. The song was written by Jim Vallance. In fact, Jim wrote the song and played nearly all the instruments on the song, yet he is listed as a co-writer with Joe Perry and Steven Tyler.
This is a direct quote sent to me from Jim:
I worked on 4 albums with Aerosmith, plus "Deuces Are Wild", which Steven and I wrote for the Beavis and Butthead soundtrack (I never did see the movie!). I think they were in a hurray to provide something for the film, and they basically used the basement demo of Deuces. I didn't get credit for it, but I am playing all the instruments except the guitar solo in the middle. -Jim Vallance

I'm fine with as long as the songs are good, in general I like songs written by people like Jim Vallance, Beau Hill and Diane Warren

Eyesore wrote:

Yeah, I don't really have an issue with it. The only time I have a problem with it is when the one who didn't write the song pretends to have done so.



So they sold it. It was "popified," given an electronic backbeat and so forth, and BOOM! Huge pop hit! And Natalie Imbruglia claimed it was her song, talked about how she wrote it and stuff. So lame.

Anyway, that's the kind of stuff that annoys me.



The original version.

When? I have that Natalie Imbruglia album and she isn't listed as a writer (the guys from Ednaswap were) She does write a lot of her own stuff but I've never heard her claim to have written that. It would be a bit silly as a simple glance at the credits show otherwise.

I'm sure that any sense of injustice they may have is eased by the cash that they got from the 7 million albums that they would have got paid for never mind the squillions of singles it sold

It all depends on the band or artists in question for me. If it's something they've always done, I guess I'm fine with a band using outside writers. I generally prefer bands that write their own material though.

What I don't care for is established bands that have proven track records as more-than-qualified songwriters, but their labels putting pressure (or outright forcing them) to use "hit writers" to garner airplay. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Quote :

I believe it's been attributed to The Beatles the sea change to "Hey, we get paid double if we write our own songs!"

Yea, The Beatles have been given a huge amount of credit as fore-runners of writing their own material. From what I've read, they along with George Martin, really had to fight for that privilege. It was the standard at the time for labels to provide the songs the band would record. They were 3 or 4 albums deep before they could put out records with just Lennon/McCartney (and eventually Harrison) credits.

One of the things I have always trumpeted about hard rock and heavy metal is that the lyrics are mostly penned by the artists. However, in the case of an artist I like/ love using outside song writers, it only would bother me if it changed the bands sound for the worse or they became unrecognizable b/c it's the label using the wrong "hit makers" . If the songs are good it really doesn't matter to me.

I know some people didn't like Cheap Trick using outside songwriters on Lap of Luxury, but I thought it was a pretty good album.

I usually have more respect for those who do their own material, but it also depends on the music and whether I like it or not.

Some of them are more like museum curators in the sense of people like Pete Seeger. He was not the most technically proficient musician but he was more of a keeper of tradition in introducing folk classics to his generation. So if you look at him in that context it makes sense.

A good song is a good song, so it does not bother me. Jeff Beck is one of my favorite artists and he rarely writes his own material, its usually one of his band members, an occasion cover tune. By the time he is done with the tune, it is stamped with his own signature, that producers of his various albums wonder why he does not sometimes at least take a co-songwriting credit

There's also something to be said for musicians who are in a bit of a rut getting some fresh blood into the writing and coming out the better for it (more often, it's a new production team, but I think the argument could hold either way).