Many musicians in this present day and age publish music that isn't written by them. Though not a very present example, the band "Aerosmith" never used to write their own music, but still published it in their name.
My question is, should musicians write their own music?
My answer: Yes. Anyone that claims themselves to be the artist or directs the music should definitely bother to write it out first.
I think it's fine as long as the people who wrote the music get paid and the artist/artists don't claim they wrote the material themselves.
I don't care, if the music is good I'm going to listen to it.
Legally, they shouldn't have to. It isn't harming anything if they don't.
No they should not. It's like asking actors to write their own scripts.
if they call themselves artists, i would expect them to write their own material. otherwise, i don't really care.
what does annoy me is when a group refers to themselves as a band when none play instruments.
I'd still like the music, but I really like the artist more if they wrote it themselves. Imagine if Lady Gaga didn't write her own lyrics (in songs such as speechless, not poker face :v:)
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;32997276]if they call themselves artists, i would expect them to write their own material. otherwise, i don't really care.
what does annoy me is when a group refers to themselves as a band when none play instruments.[/QUOTE]
unless it's an acapella band? :v:
They don't have any legal obligation but if they aren't making their own music, they aren't much of an artist, are they?
This was never an issue until the concept of "a band" and popular music came up. The music and writing and performance is all one unit, so credit is just sort of attached to the band. Traditionally composers sought out good performers to play their music for them.
[QUOTE=wewt!;32997308]I'd still like the music, but I really like the artist more if they wrote it themselves. Imagine if Lady Gaga didn't write her own lyrics (in songs such as speechless, not poker face :v:)
unless it's an acapella band? :v:[/QUOTE]
i was always under the impression they were refered to as groups.
[QUOTE=Bad)-(and;32997276]if they call themselves artists, i would expect them to write their own material. otherwise, i don't really care.
what does annoy me is when a group refers to themselves as a band when none play instruments.[/QUOTE]
THIS!
If you're performing with a big band or with some sort of group, and perform songs written by, say, Dizzie Gillespie, then sure, that's okay in my mind.
But if you're a solo artist and someone else writes your own music, that is the sign that the artist doesn't really know anything about music at all and tries to sing.
I think you focus too much on the money and attribution problem.
Let's say you have a great band: A great singer, a good bassist a really good drummer and a guitarist. You all know perfectly well how to play your instruments at a professional level, only thing, you all have no Inspiration and outside of making a few G chord progressions you are pretty much inapt to make a song.
Should all that talent go to waste?
Because playing an Instrument does not mean you know how to make music.
So my opinion is that no, you should be able to play any music you want as long as you attribute the original song to it's creator.
[QUOTE=redBadger;32997600]
But if you're a solo artist and someone else writes your own music, that is the sign that the artist doesn't really know anything about music at all and tries to sing.[/QUOTE]
Who cares, if the final result sounds awesome, who cares who wrote the lyrics, what matters is who actually put them to life.
people who write music for bands make a fair amount of cash especially in album sales. Its the touring that gets the performers the money.
If you don't write your own song, make sure it isn't the same as a different top40 pop song
[video=youtube;T2dPA2dCRNY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2dPA2dCRNY[/video]
Music is about expression, so it's not necessarily the "words" or "compositions" that have to matter, but rather that.
Musicians shouldn't [I]have[/I] to do anything in order to be expressive, the listener would be a bit pompous then.
Composing and playing music are two different arts.
A musician doesn't have to [I]write[/I] the music he plays, just as a composer doesn't have to [I]play[/I] the music he writes.
[QUOTE=redBadger;32997600]
But if you're a solo artist and someone else writes your own music, that is the sign that the artist doesn't really know anything about music at all and tries to sing.[/QUOTE]
Hey if they're a great singer and the song if great in the first place then it doesn't really matter. Billie Holiday and Aretha Franklin didn't write a lot of their songs but dammit they're beautiful.
I have MUCH more respect for artists that write their own music.
Elvis Presley didn't write much, yet he managed to be a big enough personality to become one of the most influential performers in rock history. It's true.
If someone has the talent to sing well, but can't write worth shit, it would be stupid to say it's bad that people are writing songs for them. The same could be said about a good writer who can't sing worth shit. The only reason it would be a problem is if the singer not writing their own music came from pure laziness.
Johnny Cash didn't write the song Hurt, he made it his own.
[QUOTE=AK'z;32999196]Elvis Presley didn't write much, yet he managed to be a big enough personality to become one of the most influential performers in rock history. It's true.[/QUOTE]
Most top artists never write their own music.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32999488]Most top artists never write their own music.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but I'm not talking about mainstream modern pop artists. I'm talking 50s to 70s pop, where a lot of people were covering each other and still making the songs in their own personality.
Nowadays most people are hooked onto [I]how[/I] they sound with their voice rather than what they're trying to do.
As a musician myself, I've always wrote my own music but I have also recorded and performed covers live. If a musician records and performs a song written by someone else they will get a smaller percentage of royalties, this is more prevalent in the more mainstream music industry. I think for musicians to call themselves artists they need to write their own music, it creates a fine but noticeable line between artists and performers.
I personally see no problem with people recording and performing someone else's song as long as they don't try to pass it off as their own, they are essentially session musicians who then go on to perform a cover which is seen as their song even though it's not. I have more respect for bands/musicians who write their own music because they are expressing themselves instead of expressing how somebody else feels unless they can relate heavily to the message/tone/emotion expressed in a song.
The example OP used is a great example, Aerosmith connect amazingly with their earlier songs, they give life to them and make them their own. Other musicians like the ones in Take That are pretty much just the face of someone else work, Gary Barlow seems to be the only member who is taking his career seriously.
My view on the subject, good topic OP. :)
Ah, I missed that someone could say that "musicians" don't necessarily have to be "artists".
Good for mentioning that.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33000005]Ah, I missed that someone could say that "musicians" don't necessarily have to be "artists".
Good for mentioning that.[/QUOTE]
Singing is art, even if the lyrics aren't your own.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
It's the same as acting. You don't need to write a script yourself to be a good actor
[QUOTE=AK'z;33000005]Ah, I missed that someone could say that "musicians" don't necessarily have to be "artists".
Good for mentioning that.[/QUOTE]
You're welcome. :)
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33000111]Singing is art, even if the lyrics aren't your own.
[editline]28th October 2011[/editline]
It's the same as acting. You don't need to write a script yourself to be a good actor[/QUOTE]
Yeah but you've missed the point too.
Say "extras" in a movie, they aren't artists at all.
The topic itself is an art, but the people within it don't have to be.
Of course singing is an art, that's because the person is using their natural tool of expression. But if someone plays session drums or bass, they kind of lose their personal emotion.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33006385]Yeah but you've missed the point too.
Say "extras" in a movie, they aren't artists at all.
The topic itself is an art, but the people within it don't have to be.
Of course singing is an art, that's because the person is using their natural tool of expression. But if someone plays session drums or bass, they kind of lose their personal emotion.[/QUOTE]
Why are they not artists? Because they are not in front of the spotlight? Or because they are not famous?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.