Artists Who Don't Write Their Own Music
 

When I was younger, I naturally made the assumption that whatever name was on the front cover of a CD was the group of people who wrote the songs I was hearing. Eventually, I came to realize that many artists don't write their own tunes. Now, while anyone who writes a song gets credit as at least a cowriter of the piece and therefore receives royalties, I still feel there should be a certain level of involvement by the musicians in the writing process. While I don't fully disapprove of outside writers, I believe that if your name is credited for the material on the album, then you should be involved as at least a co-writer on the songs on that record. When I have expressed this opinion to people previously, some brought up the argument that some people have a talent in performing while others have a talent in writing and therefore we should not restrict people talented in one area. To a point, I agree with this argument. Some musicians are much better at performing songs while other are fantastic composers. This is why I believe in the partial role of the artists, especially when an entire band is involved. As long as the artist (or at least one of the band members) is contributing to the creative process, I see no problem with initial ideas coming from outside sources provided there is some level of involvement. But when it comes down to it, good music is good music. Regardless of whether and artist writes their own music or not, I will buy their records if I like the material presented. I just believe that a level of creative involvement is important to maintain artistic integrity.

I really don't agree all that much. The point that some people are good at one thing, not so great at another, should not detract from purported "artistic integrity." Someone may be a splendid screenwriter, but a horrendous director. Someone may be an absolutely wonderful director, but not such a great writer. A graphic novelist may have great story ideas, but no drawing ability whatsoever.

That doesn't detract from their particular skill at all. Just because someone has a talent at something doesn't mean they have to have a talent in every aspect of that something, able to pull it off single-handedly. That's just not realistic. That's where collaboration comes in; when two or more individuals who are talented at different things, and work together to make a final product that's as good as they can. That's to be applauded.

The quarterback doesn't throw the ball down the field and catch it himself, block for himself...and that doesn't take away from him or her doing what they do well.

It doesn't diminish any sort of integrity; it's people playing to their own personal strengths, acknowledging their own shortcomings, and working with others to make something better than they could have done alone.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I still maintain the idea that the artists performing the material get entirely too much credit for the work. I guess a parallel can be drawn between the production of an album and a film. The performing artists and the actors are the ones who are most recognized within the public for their work. The actual songs presented on an album should be credited to the writers, not the bands. For me, it almost seems as if bands who do not write their own material are taking credit for what others have done. I don't care who performs the songs live, but when listening to a CD, I want the creators of these songs to be regarded for their work.

Well you couldn't have that, could you, as many writers are pretty much unknowm, and who's going to buy a CD by Sid Mitchell? But if it's Robbie Williams singing Sid Mitchell songs, then that makes it sell. What about cover versions? If an artist covers someone else's ong (famous or not) how do you stand on that? In the end, it's the singer who delivers the songs to the public; without their performance the songs, good though they may be, could sit forever on someone's notebook or computer and never see the light of day.

I admit, I was disappointed when I listened to Faith Hills' "Cry" album and saw that she had not written a single song on it, but sometimes that's how these things work. The songs come across to me as less personal because the artist has not (to my knowledge) been involved in the creative process, but it doesn't make them any less their songs. Someone else might deliver the songs completely differently, so it's also a lot about the execution I feel.

What about Sinatra? I'm pretty sure he wrote no songs himself, but surely you wouldn't call him anything less than a consummate artist?

This whole having to write your own material crap has only been a factor since the mid 60s, and even then it's still only a part of a very narrow sphere of popular music.

The most people I tend to hear this from are usually classic rock bores who have opinions on which is the best guitar solo ever or think Led Zeppelin 4 is a good album.

And in your opinion, what makes Led Zeppelin 4 such a bad album ?

Where did I say it was?

Well saying that Led Zeppelin 4 is for classic rock bores isn't the best compliment that you could give an album....

I have been watching a movie lately called Amadeus. It's about, as I'm sure you can all guess, Mozart. Seeing the way that the movie portrayed Mozart as a composer really helped to open my eyes as to how one can truly be a songwriter.
So on that note, I will have to say that I was wrong in thinking that all musicians should write their own music. This was a notion that was formulated in my middle school years and I'm still in the process of working through many of the ideas I had then in a more logical sense.
But I do have this to say: if I am not mistaken, during the 1700s when Mozart was still alive, it was the composers of music that became famous. Of course, many performers would achieve renown as well, but it seemed that the focus of the music was the actual composition versus those who were performing it. Unlike now when the focus is on the performer. People would go to see Mozart's new opera because he was the composer, and not just because of the people performing the songs. And out of personal opinion, I would prefer the focus be on the composer.

Yeah but back then Mozart performed the music himself, or at least conducted it. Anyway you can't compare classical music to modern music: there has never, to my mind, been a classical composition NOT written by the composer/artiste it's identified with. In other words, Beethoven didn't ask people to write for him, nor did Grieg, Haydn, Liszt... the whole idea was to compose and own your own music, AND play it too.

Completely different ballgame.
What do you think of my Sinatra point?

Well, how many symphonies have there been when the composer has not been there to conduct his music? But we still identify the piece with the composer. I guess you do make in point in saying that the climate of the musical world has changed a great deal since then. So perhaps I am being idealist in thinking that more credit should go to composers than they currently receive. Despite that, it would be nice if it were so.
And about Sinatra, although I don't consider myself well-versed enough in his music to give an accurate opinion of his work, I would like to point out the validity in your argument that the songs on his records wouldn't sound the same if not coming from his distinctive voice regardless of whether or not he wrote the songs himself.

I would prefer if you would stay on topic instead of addressing the tangents of his argument.

So.... are you agreeing with me? I'm not being smart: it seems like you are but it's phrased somehow as if you're not...? :confused:

The point I was making about classical is that it was a whole different world back then. There was no such thing as playing others' music: any composer would have to write his own music and play it, so far as I know. As for symphonies now playing their music, well be fair: they're hundreds of years dead. It's not like there's a choice. And if Mozart had played a sonata composed by Haydn, or whomever, I think it would still have been associated with him, just as my other examples are. Not too many people these days remember or even know (or care about) the songwriter, just the song. Then of course you have the likes of Diane Warren, who has written chart-toppers for so many artistes, but achieved no success herself in the actual music world other than as a songwriter. Would you consider the songs she wrote for, say, Meat Loaf or Starship as hers or theirs?

in a way i kind of agree with the OP. i often find myself comparing the artists of today with those of the days when timeless art was kind of par for course, and what i see lacking in a lot of artists today is the dedication and madness. that level of obsession with artistic production which - from what i can tell - comes not only from practicing the craft incessantly but also a great deal of thinking about life intensely. i kinda feel like artists today are distracted on a general level, and we'll never see the genius of another beethoven ever again.

i don't mean to sound like a snob or demean the validity of artists' work today, but to me it's really a matter of comparing masters to children. perhaps the dynamic of writer/performer exists so easily because most people are okay with being children and just indulging in the will to create. a lot of masters were also egoists (competitive) as well, which it seems the current paradigm of thinkers is trying to overcome... which may or may not be a good thing. that's a different discussion altogether, but perhaps worth considering.

Sorry Trollheart, I phrased that very poorly. I didn't realize it made no sense until just now. I was agreeing with you that he is no less of an artist because he doesn't write his own material. He's just an artist in how he sings, not in how he writes.

I guess when it comes down to it, if I like the music, I'm going to buy the records. I just prefer when artists write their own music.

haha... oh jeez. sometimes i need to include more info...

i didn't mean by any of that to say that the music coming out of people today is not enjoyable or not worth it's salt. in all likelihood, i probably like more music by people who i would not consider masters than ones that i would. i guess i was trying to highlight the amount of work and dedication it took to produce music that people would pay any attention to back then... music was so serious. it took what today would amount to a lifelong schooling in a single thing to get someone to fund the scoring of an orchestra's-worth of notation and then pay one to play it... unless of course a composer was so ambitious as to fund something like that themselves, probably doubling the already-intense fear of failure. i don't know... i just look at it as a breeding ground for genius.

obviously genius is not even close to the only good thing coming out of musicians though. but at one time, if you weren't something breathtakingly special, you were no one.

i feel like what i'm typing isn't quite translating into what i'm thinking about this... i guess i'm trying to pinpoint what it is and when it was that opened the gates to an openness about perceived limitations in one's abilities which allowed musicians, composers and writers to borrow each others' talents instead of taking on the task of making great art solo. i'm not knocking it, i'm just trying to figure it out.

Okay, put it this way. Have you ever listened to a song that moved you? I'm almost certain that the answer to this is a resounding, "YES."

Did you write that song? No?

Okay. So, a song can move you without you having written it. Fantastic. Now we have people whose voices are well-honed instruments, but they're not especially talented at writing songs. But, there are people who can write songs to move them, to affect them. They become the mouthpiece to the song, but they are also more than likely moved by the song. Otherwise, there would have been a disconnect that negatively affected the song, without even knowing the performer didn't write it.

Did Whitney Houston write "I Will Always Love You?" does her rendition still move people to tears? Did Jeff Buckley write "Hallelujah?" Does his rendition still stand out as many peoples' favorite song, or near the top of their list?

Also, do fantastic actors...does Daniel Day-Lewis write his lines? Does Meryl Streep? Did Bette Davis? Katharine Hepburn?

There is no integrity lost if someone performs effectively their role in a piece of art.

Completely agree with this.

Also, I appreciate it when an interpretive singer or cover song leads me to discover a songwriter or singer/songwriter whose works I can then follow and enjoy. I've "discovered" many a favorite artist this way.

Not a problem with me, considering that there's something interesting or earthy going on in the sounds. Most modern day Pop that aims for the Midwestern Wal Mart customers is too slick, boring, and polished, though.

For today's Pop, I'm sure that if I look enough, there may be a few sounds from Japan and Europe (Maybe Russia?) I might like with more dynamics in their style.

When it comes to a topic like this, however, I think about the days of labels like Stax and Motown, filled with singers who can take a song by one of the great in-house songwriters and make it their own. Phillies (Phil Spector's label) and Red Dog had their own classics as well with the Girl Groups.

The Animals had some great hits written by others in their Mickey Most era ("Don't Bring Me Down"), let alone their career-spanning examples of great Blues covers.

The Rolling Stones started out as a Blues covers band. Thankfully, Andrew Oldham got Mick and Keith to write, but they were a good Blues band who only hinted at later glories.

The Standells had their hits written by their Producer, Ed "Tainted Love" Cobb (He also wrote that long-standing song covered by Gloria Jones and, in the 80's, Soft Cell). Thankfully, the energy in songs like "Dirty Water" made a lot of listeners overlook that fact.

The TV project turned into a band The Monkees had a long line of great songs written by others in both their first season Pop bonanza and the Post-Kirshner days ("Porpoise Song" was I think a Goffin/King composition). That's one of a long line of Pop groups of that era.

Three Dog Night did well with their self-chosen line of covers.

Disco may have turned into a crap assembly line near the end of it's heyday, but earlier on a few class acts stood out. Donna Summer's early records are examples.

The Early 80's attempts at a New Wave style had a number of guilty pleasures. Maybe it's my age, but that was the final fling of Pop that attracted my ears without caring about if it was original or not. The Mid 80's and beyond don't have that much of an attraction, the start of the too-slick approach.

Dusty Springfield, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and many others were part of the early Pop years where there had to be a cool attached to attract the buyers and live longer than 15 Minutes. There was a serious difference between them and crap like Fabien. Sadly, from what I have noticed, the US Pop culture now is mainly filled with Fabiens with Auto-Tune, ready made beats, and studios that have so much multi-track abilities that any mess up can be covered. Plus, thanks to the Internet, the less choosy (especially in the Small Dots and Yellow Stains that together seriously out-weigh the hipper centers) have more of an easier way to pick and keep their fame alive.



It's not how it's created, but what goes into it.

in all honesty i would probably say that at least 90% of the music i listen to is all written by the bands and or artists themselves but that is mainly because of the genres i listen to....and i have to admit that i think i honestly do have a little more respect for singer songwriters....at the same time i don't think i really look down upon or shame an artist for not writing their own songs....i could easily list quite a few covers that i think are better than the originals.....and i have tons of respect for artists who just genuinely have amazing talent.....Dolly Parton only wrote a handful of her own songs.....and she is the bees knees in my eyes....and especially in pop music....many of these people are chosen because of the raw talent they have with their voices....and it does not matter if they wrote it or not....what matters is the honest feeling they put behind the lyrics


fixed that for you....as to clear up any and all misunderstandings :)

this is a prefect answer....love the comparison to actors

i am slowing beginning to think that it is the autotune that will be the demise of all creativity in music

It has, but strangely enough there's a bit of an optimist in me that thinks that MAYBE the public will get sick of it. I already think that "It's so 2000's":rofl:, but then again they will have to step up to realize that.

I will say that my Originals/Pop ratio is about yours. My collection though is getting into things I heard as a kid-teen to bring back some memories which has made it about 85/15 in recent days, though.

i think it's one of those "has to get worse to bet better" deals....and i think it is....even my young nephews are starting to step away from the autotune pop crap and get into "shudders" dub step....which is i suppose a step in the right direction

Pointless tbh. If I hear music and find out the 'artist' didn't write it, I will think it's **** straight away.

Is a chef a chef if someone else cooks the food for him?

Good music is good music I don't care who wrote of plays it


if a producer makes a good song and then gives it to a artist ... then im like cool I wanna know who this Producer is cuz I like him

Wouldn't the more appropriate question be "Is a chef a chef if someone else creates the recipe for him?" It's still up to the chef to put the work into cooking the dish.

It doesn't bother me if a performer isn't the writer/creator of a song--it's their presentation and interpretation that will make me like/dislike it. Some of the big names like Jeff Beck and Barbra Streisand have albums full of songs written by others, but it's still their unique talents that make the music what it is.

i also think that an artist should write his/her own song, but on the other hand it also depend what kind of music it is and what her/his role is in the music. for me, its importand that the melody of a song is right