Away With Words

The difference between a musician and a songwriter are lyrics. i consider myself a musician, but when discovering home recording, it became evident that there was a hierarchy of sound that had to be dealt with. If examined, certain frequencies and types of sound stick out from the mix more, drawing the ear towards them, no matter how they are buried or how badly they are played. This will make a difference in what you create and the choice of instrumentation.

At the bottom of the list would be bass tones and most drums. They can of course be lead instruments, but in Western music at least you will have a hard time keeping a listener's attention. The world's greatest bass players and drummers do not do solo albums of just their instrument in isolation. Instead, those types of tones are foundational to the overall song.

Think of Charles Mingus, who created great jazz structures. His bass playing was not the central feature on most of the material he wrote. The same with Paul McCartney or Jack Bruce in rock, Willie Dixon in the Blues; the bass was the foundation on which the song was built, not the end-all. The situation is even worse for drummers. While there are a few examples of drum-forward albums, they are few and far between, never bothering the charts.

In this hierarchy of sound, above the foundational instruments are most of the sounds that can be successfully made on a relatively cheap synthesizer, such as a Casio. Orchestra strings, both separate and grouped together, as well as horn sections belong here. Organ sounds can be grouped here, as well as piano, but they can elevate above it. It also depends on the volume of the backing; the acoustic guitar usually falls into this category, although not the electric.

Take for instance the Who song 'Magic Bus'. Released in 1968, this is one of the first hard rock songs to emphasize an acoustic guitar. When Pete Townshend is strumming the acoustic, to be heard in the mix he needs the bass to be reduced to a single note throb and the drummer to play softer percussion, such as wood blocks. As soon as Keith Moon comes in with a full kit, the guitar switches to electric to compete in the sound field.

Lead instrumentation comes above this level. Single horns such as saxophones and trumpets have the sonic punch to rise above a rhythm section, as does the electric guitar. During the 1960s, there was a revolution in sound amplification, and this shifted the hierarchy of sound. In the early days of rock 'n roll, the saxophone was likely to be the lead instrument. Suddenly, with amplified bass guitars instead of stand-ups and the use of bigger kits and more ride cymbals, electric guitar was about the only thing that could be heard above the background noise.

Keyboard players were affected by this. The piano, which was a dominating instrument in an acoustic jazz combo, almost became lost in the din. The organ was slightly better; it wasn't until Keith Emerson and Jon Lord figured out how to amplify and add the type of distortion used on guitars that they could become equal or even dominant players. Synthesizers, first with the Moog and later a plethora of brands, also could rise above the background.

Not much need be said about the electric guitar; once amplification was added in a scientifically engineered way by Les Paul in the late 1940s, it only took ten to fifteen years for the new instrument to become the dominant sound. The British Invasion bands, especially the Yardbirds and the Who, started adding more powerful amps to their sound re-enforcement, and things quickly spiraled out of control. By late 1966, you had the twin behemoths of Cream and the Jimi Hendrix Experience playing at unheard of volumes (literally - you were destined to go deaf).

Yet for all this jockeying for first place amongst the sonic landscape, none of these could compete with the once and future King and Queen, the human voice. No matter how faint, how out of tune, or how minimal to the overall impact of a piece of music, the human voice dominates. It is probably instinctual, burned into our DNA, from babies crying and mothers singing lullabies to war chants. Like they say, it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

Musically, I would be quite happy to stay in the realm of instrumentals, but after a couple of years recording I noticed the hierarchy of sound. The temptation to play with it was too great to resist, even though that meant that I had to sing. And I sincerely do not want to be a singer, because, unless all you do is cover songs, you have to have words to sing, except if you want to just make sound with your mouth. Words have meaning, and that is where things get messy.

The first song that I wrote that had words were made up on the spot, and I had such dim prospects of success that I recorded my voice on the same microphone at the same time as the acoustic rhythm guitar. It still came out fine in the mix, even though it was one step above total gibberish. I was both stuck and hooked, starting to cover songs that I thought my vocal range could handle. I also started writing lyrics, sometimes with less than great success.

The song above is a very early attempt at stringing words together, except that I am playing with having no obvious meaning. My problem was that there were no important messages burning inside of me that needed to be expressed with words. Musically the song is strong, but, as was often the case in the early days (even on some cover songs), I run out of steam as a vocalist. Singing is as much about approaching the material with the right attitude as it is about hitting the right notes.

Of all the songs that I have bothered to create music videos for, that may be my least favorite, or at least in the bottom three. It was more an experiment with throwing random words on the screen as well as singing almost nonsensical words. As I said, the music was good, even my early attempt at funk drumming, so there are some redeeming elements. But lyric writing was a slippery slope, and I proceeded cautiously.

Not all of my early attempts were as dismal as 'Lather Rinse Repeat.' An even earlier song, 'Apres le Deluge', was better at having no direct story line yet managing to convey an atmosphere of impending apocalyptic doom. Musically, it was heavy psych metal, a genre that I am very comfortable in. Vocally, I was able to sell it this time, despite my lack of experience. Win some, lose some.

The music video was also interesting, trying to cram the history of the world into one five and a half segment. There is no direct message but the intent comes through, and the music matches it, including great use of strings in the background. That is the original mix from 2008, not the remix from 2016. I even got that right.

The last video for this blog was done just this week, for a song that I wrote in 2016 and recorded last year. I try my best to stay away from politics, but that has become virtually impossible in today's world. The song was a way to release emotion during a very turbulent time. I had real trouble singing it; every time, I told myself to be calm, and every time I would wind up screaming at the top of my lungs after a verse or two.

I knew the song would make a powerful video if I could find the right images. Trolling through the Prelinger Archive, after much searching I found some old civil defense material. Mixing up the visuals from three separate films, I feel like I got the mood of the times about right on this one. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, but some poor chump actually has to provide what a the time of writing feels like a literal thousand words, even if the count is, in reality, much less.

For once, there is a very definite meaning, and if not an actual story, something that is both literal and lateral. By now, after a decade's practice, I can write lyrics without feeling a fool. There are even love songs starting to appear slowly, a genre I never thought myself capable of  creating. The 2017 project had around a dozen songs with lyrics, even if not all were used. But meaning will always remain a problem, a situation to be avoided more often than not. The message, like beauty, should be in the eye of the beholder.