Yr6/Wk30 She Has Funny Cups

Did I say there is a "lot to be said"? :D

Throw out the rules?
Kewl!
I never knew them! :mrgreen:

And how could anyone get us confused? :shock:
Is she not getting enough sleep?

Did I say there is a "lot to be said"? :D

Throw out the rules?
Kewl!
I never knew them! :mrgreen:

And how could anyone get us confused? :shock:
Is she not getting enough sleep?

HAHAHAHA!

The Zen of Songwriting:

This is a bit harder to explain....
Zen always is :twisted:

To me, a lot of songs I see here on SSG seem to be written 'one sentence at a time', for lack of a better definition.

About the best way I've seen Zen try to be defined is with the old example of using a fork to eat....
Something we can all do; Without thinking about it.
If you did stop to think about it, you'd probably end up sticking yourself in the face with the fork.

When you talk, you don't think about every word that you say....
And writing a song should be like that, or it will sound as funny as if you did stop to think of every word you say when you speak.

Kerouac was a firm believer in writing without stopping, without punctuation, or structure.
He thought that all of those things were stumbling blocks and would inhibit the 'source'.

Don't get me wrong.... I still write things without a Zen method.
And I still write songs using the tried (tired) and true 'formulas'....
Sometimes though.... JAZZ!!!! :D

I'm just saying that there are a lot of possibilities....
Art has always been about testing boundaries, pushing limits, breaking new ground....
It's not enough to write about 'subjects' that you normally wouldn't if you're never going
to venture out of that same old crate you've been sitting in.

If you just stay in the same old box, you're sure to write songs....
If what you want is ART though....

Ken

Well, that's me told off then!

Actually, I think I understand Ken the songwriter a little better now, as opposed to CitiZenNoir the forum contributor - which will possibly give me a deeper insight into future lyrics.

I'm not one of those people who can write in an unstructured manner - I prefer to have a beginning middle and end, usually in the right order. Point taken about Dylan/Lennon, but those guys worked a long time at their craft before they started working with more cryptic lyrics. Maybe Lennon's a bad example there - perhaps a Zappa or Cohen might get the point across.

So for me the Zen approach to songwriting is one I shy away from, and have trouble comprehending sometimes. I suppose I'm guilty of trying to tidy up something (the wink/sink would-be couplet....) that, to Ken, DOESN'T need altering. Different strokes, different folks. I suppose I am a little rigid in the structure of my writing - formulaic, even? But then I'm not one for writing cryptic lyrics - I like to get the point across quickly, so that people understand what I'm trying to explain, and think, "yes, that happened to me..." I'd like to use more imagery in my writing, more poetry, more mystique - but that isn't really me.

I didn't say I didn't enjoy the writing - it's a fresh slant on an old idea. It's just that I prefer structured and tidy to Zen, or stream-of-consciousness writing. What I shouldn't do is treat every song the same - some people don't follow the rules, and can get away with it all the time - Straycat, for example.

Anyway, you've certainly given me food for thought, Mr Noir - and I will, in suitably chastened fashion, treat every song on its own merits in future!

And as for Art - well, one man's art is another man's pile of bricks, or dessicated dog-turds, or sheep in formaldehyde....

I'm glad you've taken the time and trouble to explain, though, Ken - I will read your lyrics in a different light from now on.

:D :D :D

Vic

Hey, give me enough beers and I become very Zen-like.
Vic does too.
I've read his posts after he's drunk . . a few brews.

Vic, no.... I sincerely hope that you don't think I was telling you off!....? :shock:

I used your critique as my examples to discuss a few things that I had on my mind in general about the SSG forum....
I wasn't singling you out though.
I figured if anyone could take it in the spirit intended, it would be you :)

Sorry, I was a student of Aikido for years....
"Ueshiba's goal was to create an art that practitioners could use to defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury"

I figured it was safer for me to stay in my own posting than to go around criticising other people's lyrics.
I tried giving a critique once right after I joined GN.... I felt AWFUL afterward :(
If the SSGers read what's here, maybe they'll try to apply some of it.... That was my goal.

I see - You find my Forum Posts to be a bit 'polished' (LOL),
and my songs to be a bit on the, um.... unorthodox side....? :lol:

Don't get me wrong Vic.... I'm not saying that MY way is the ONLY way.
Like I said.... I don't ALWAYS reach that far with my lyrics.

If you like the structured approach, that's fine with me.... There's still a lot of room to stretch out in as far as that goes though.
Ya know.... That's really what I was trying to do with the posts here.... Offer a new kernel to seed and see where it grows.

I know you know about the call and response thing when it comes to Blues Music.... Have you ever considered using it in a lyrical sense before though????
(And I mean NOT in a blues song with the two repeating question lines followed by the answer line).
That provides even MORE structure :D

I mean, if you look at this song as a whole.... the second verse 'reveals' even more about the original....
Still, you're left wondering: Why are these things being revealed to me????
Chorus - Because that's all that I got left.... Just two cups once full of dreams.

Vic wrote - "I'd like to use more imagery in my writing, more poetry, more mystique - but that really isn't me."

I suggest my friend that you don't place such limits on yourself!
No one else here does!

If you want those things.... Go and get them!
Start out slow if you want; just dip your big toe in those waters.... see what happens :wink:

You preface each of those qualities with 'More'....
Here's a secret.... LESS is best!

If you want more of those things, try putting less into your song lines!

That is to say - After you write a line, look at it and figure out what can be cut out of it.
Then, get rid of it.
If it leaves a hole.... think of a SINGLE word that sums all of it up that you need.

I'm going to throw out FOUR words....
My favorite song line ever:
"Footsteps dressed in red"

WOW!!!!
Now that just sets my imagination ON FIRE!!!!
I can visualize a whole scene unfolding from just those four LITTLE words.

What do you think would happen if I wrote that line instead of Jimi and posted it in a song here????
I'd bet it would get slammed!!!!
Whose footsteps????
What are they walking on????
What kind of shoes????
Dressed in a red WHAT????
Is it a boy or a girl????
What color hair do they have????
What color eyes????
What's their skin tone????
I mean I only want to know because, you know, only certain people can get away with wearing red.... that's all.
Where are they going????
Where are they COMING FROM!...?
What time is it????
Come on, how can FOOTSTEPS be dressed at all!

As the songwriter, you know what my answer to all of those questions are????
YOU TELL ME THE ANSWERS!
What do YOU see????

I promise you, everyone will see something different.

If you put TOO MUCH information into the lyrics.... you kill the listeners imagination.

The more open ended you leave it.... more people can say they relate to it; Because then they can insert themselves into the lyrics and interpret it to taylor fit thier own life.

Anyway - I'm not saying that you hated the lyrics.... I know it's not for everyone. (Kathy :wink: )
And I'm not saying that I have this 'style' all down perfect either.
But I'm not going to get it unless I keep reaching for it.

Thankx everyone for your patience 8)

Ken

I think you may be thinking that KR's re-working was mine....?
And how could anyone get us confused?
Is she not getting enough sleep? :oops: oops.... oh boy, was I confused! so sorry!!! really, how could I :wink:
The last 5% would be the ones who morph the lyrics to mean something to them.... And that's cool! agreed!
Art is not answers or, similarily: "explanation destroys art" (not in the sense that art is ineffective if it needs to be explained, but rather that it is taking the fun out of it to try to fix it to one definite author-intended meaning or having every detail of a piece of art explained/laid out ... well, roland barthes would say "the author is dead", but I'd rather say: art is free to everyone's own way of seeing, which might or might not differ from original intentions) um... rambling... :lol: just read on in the thread a bit, and maybe this comment sums it up: If you put TOO MUCH information into the lyrics.... you kill the listeners imagination. :wink: although too open lyrics might be again difficult to connect with... if you take painting, I don't feel much for too much abstraction, when I see nothing but colours (they can be cool, too, but I like it if I can find a picture in there- even if it's not an intended one). ah, rambling :roll:

also agree to the rhythm of words without actual rhymes, but wouldn't think perfect rhyme schemes are in any way inferior. it's all in how you do it :D so, I'm with both of you, Ken and Vic :)

and I love the "footsteps dressed in red" :wink:

anyhow, it was real fun to read all of your posts!
I feel enlightened :D
cheers,
straycat.

This is a pretty interesting thread, I've been away from SSG for a little while and am just catching up.
Ken, I like this song and would really like to hear how it is arranged, that way I can get a feel for it. For me the true test of a song, or any piece of art for that matter is how it makes me feel when I'm exposed to it.

Cheers
Paul

Art is not answers or, similarily: "explanation destroys art" (not in the sense that art is ineffective if it needs to be explained, but rather that it is taking the fun out of it to try to fix it to one definite author-intended meaning or having every detail of a piece of art explained/laid out ... well, roland barthes would say "the author is dead", but I'd rather say: art is free to everyone's own way of seeing, which might or might not differ from original intentions) um... rambling... :lol: just read on in the thread a bit, and maybe this comment sums it up: If you put TOO MUCH information into the lyrics.... you kill the listeners imagination. :wink: although too open lyrics might be again difficult to connect with... if you take painting, I don't feel much for too much abstraction, when I see nothing but colours (they can be cool, too, but I like it if I can find a picture in there- even if it's not an intended one). ah, rambling :roll:

straycat.

"Explanation destroys art"
Agreed.
And if memory serves me correctly.... Didn't I get all upset with you a while back for explaining one of your pieces that I really dug....? LOL!

I don't think that either of us are inclined to explain our writings.... Offered as art.

On this forum is a different story.

If someone of the general public wants to interpret (or misinterpret) our work.... Fine.
They can choose to like or dislike it.
Whatever.

Here though, people are trying to critique our stuff.... and I think that they deserve to know what the subject matter is,
where it comes from, where it's going, and to some extent; What methods are being employed.

"Too open lyrics might again be difficult to connect with"
Of course....
I totally agree with that.
It has to add up to something.
Though sometimes it can be a series of vivid shots, that together lead up to something.

I don't think I would trim lines down to just one word or just one letter or anything! :wink:
(Though sometimes, one word is all you might need)

Thinking like a photographer; The key to taking color pics is to limit yourself to having just three colors in the shot.
Any more and the shot becomes too 'busy'.
It ends up as a distraction to the 'picture reader'. (Yes, people 'read' pictures, much like they read words - like starting from the top left and working thru it like they are reading it) (Of course, the eye is drawn to the where the 'thirds' cross and things like highlights in the eyes)

Anyway - That's why B&W is so wonderful.... It only has three 'colors' in it at all times.
(Actually, it's just one 'color'; White, and all it's myriad tonalities until it reaches Black)

Of course the three color rule can be broken - IF you are taking a picture of something that is multi-colored,
or if you are taking a picture of just colors.

Back to wordsmithing - I feel that writing is pretty similar.
I would go with a series of short/vivid lines that together add up to a bigger picture over a bunch of lines with too much information in them that ends up losing the context and getting lost along the way.

And that is also where I break from my two writing heros (Kerouac and Ginsberg).
I like to follow their pattern of writing - Except that they both favored really long lines! :roll:
(And that's what people generally find not to their liking about their writings)
Oh well.

Anyway - I just wrote this yesterday after Vic inspired me with his unfinished thread....
I think it sums up my short/vivid theory better than me trying to explain it :wink:

The clean misty morning
the glittering dew
Bends the light into colors
slowly fading the blue
I FEEL LIKE THE SUNRISE
of the first dawn of my life
a new language is spoken
A new vision is mine

Ken