Quote:
Originally posted by ontherocks
Actually, he has a valid point. It's not about that he is not relevant anymore. Noel has talked a lot of BS over the years, but the thing he is actually saying is that the artists themselves become replaceable.
Being a professional songwriter and producer is way more profitable than being an artist in the spotlight.
These teams of sogwriters can easily replace the artist when they think they are done or becoming annoying or whatever.
Personally, I prefer artists who write their own material themselves. They can have somebody they are co-working with, but at least they have to be the force behind the song
|
My point is that why should it matter how many people were responsible in making a song if the song is good? At the end of the day, the public doesn't give a single care about who wrote a song or how many co-writers there were as long as they enjoy it. If we're talking "artistic merit" here then fine. I agree, an artist has way more street cred when they can pen their own song (whether it's a hit or not). But really, the whole point of collaboration is bringing together multiple people with talents in different areas in order to achieve a great final package, and that's what these teams of writers, producers and performers do.
Quote:
Originally posted by YouBetterPopBitch
....I agree with him but like somebody else said, I prefer a team of songwriters who write great tunes because not everybody has the talent for writing songs and there's nothing wrong with that actually. I stan for Britney and the fact her biggest tunes weren't written by her is not a problem for me. Tho, if you take songs like "...Baby One More Time" (written by Max Martin) or "Oops!...I did It Again" (written by Max and Rami), it was written by one or two people, same for "Slave 4 U" (written by The Neptunes) etc.
It's nothing new pop artists have teams of songwriters for them but we have to admit that, especially nowadays, there's more and more people credited for one song, like who's doing what, it's just ridiculous sometimes...
For example, you look at the credits for "Booty"
...and you're thinking "all these people have actually been in the same room to write a meaningless song like that , well ok there you go....
|
Again, why should this matter to anyone but the people involved? Unless your name is included in that contract for royalty splits then really what's it to you? That's a serious question.
![@michael.](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/korn0818/ATRL_Smilies_All/atrlers/micheal_zps45ccf519.gif)
So many stans in here talking down the idea of songwriting teams when all of our faves have probably used a small team of songwriters and producers at some point in their career.
And not every song with a ton of writers/producers in the credits was actually written with everyone there together. A song can go through many different stages and everyone who had a hand in it deserves credit. One of my friends who engineers told me about the process before and it makes sense. Some songs start with a piano and vocal (by one or two songwriters), then progress to a basic demo (produced by one or two producers), then gets picked up by a label and progresses to a bigger production (maybe adding another big name producer), then the songwriting could get tweaked again to change lyrics or melodies (add another big name songwriter or two to the list). Then add the artist/performer to the list, who might decide to change some parts to put their own "touch" on it (and that's 2 or more extra people to the list if the song gets picked up by a group/band). There, with only 3 iterations of a song, you already have almost 6 - 8 people, none of whom may have even met each other before. This is common practice. I don't see why it's such an issue. At the end of the day, if the song is still great, and still maintains the life it had in its original version, why does it matter?