Morrissey & Marr ranked among 50 best British songwriters

[Worm]

Bollocks. The song is the words and melody. The parts Morrissey writes. It's only in the last 30-40 years the writer of the accompanying music has even got writer's credit. They used to be called arrangers and were paid a fee.

I'm sure Messrs. Whyte, Boorer et al feel deeply grateful to Morrissey for giving credit where credit's not due.

(Johnny, of course, would have laughed his ass of at the mere hint of being labeled a "musical arranger", but that's so far back in history my head hurts.)

 

[Danny_]

In modern day pop music the person who writes the music is entitled to the writing credit. That doesn't change the fact that the "song" is the words and melody.

 

[nugz]

In modern day pop music the person who writes the music is entitled to the writing credit. That doesn't change the fact that the "song" is the words and melody.

yeah but if someone came up to me and was like "i wrote a song, wanna hear it?" and i said "sure!" and then they started just...singing to me, accapella, id be like "wtf? wheres your guitar?" so when i think of songwriting, i think of words AND music.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

Bollocks. The song is the words and melody. The parts Morrissey writes. It's only in the last 30-40 years the writer of the accompanying music has even got writer's credit. They used to be called arrangers and were paid a fee.

Complete and utter nonsense. Scott Joplin, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael, Duke Ellington, and countless hundreds of others didn't get writer's credit for their accompanying music? Lieber/Stoller? Goffin/King? Lennon/friggin' McCartney? Arrangers don't write the music; they arrange music that earlier composers wrote. It just so happened that songs were recycled much more often prior to the advent of rock 'n' roll.

I'd also venture that in Morrissey's songs, at least, 50% of the melody is written by the musicians, not just Morrissey.

 

[Worm]

Complete and utter nonsense. Scott Joplin, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael, Duke Ellington, and countless hundreds of others didn't get writer's credit for their accompanying music? Lieber/Stoller? Goffin/King? Lennon/friggin' McCartney? Arrangers don't write the music; they arrange music that earlier composers wrote. It just so happened that songs were recycled much more often prior to the advent of rock 'n' roll.

I'd also venture that in Morrissey's songs, at least, 50% of the melody is written by the musicians, not just Morrissey.

So this is what it takes to get your dander up, eh? Or is it just that Lennon and McCartney are in the vicinity?

Re: Morrissey's songs. As Rogan, Goddard and others have described the process, Morrissey is certainly entitled to claim some credit for the music-- the melody or, particularly, the structure. As you've probably read, his collaborators all speak of being amazed at how he switched up the various parts of the song (e.g. reversing the usual chorus-verse order). So due respect and all that. But on the other hand, who's to say the musicians haven't given him new ideas and inspiration in return? Perhaps not words, but melodies and moods?

I mean, off the top of my head, I can think of at least one tune inspired by his drummer.

 

[Dave]

In modern day pop music the person who writes the music is entitled to the writing credit. That doesn't change the fact that the "song" is the words and melody.

You're talking about the "tune", not the "song".

 

[Danny_]

Complete and utter nonsense. Scott Joplin, George Gershwin, Cole Porter, Hoagy Carmichael, Duke Ellington, and countless hundreds of others didn't get writer's credit for their accompanying music? Lieber/Stoller? Goffin/King? Lennon/friggin' McCartney? Arrangers don't write the music; they arrange music that earlier composers wrote. It just so happened that songs were recycled much more often prior to the advent of rock 'n' roll.

I'd also venture that in Morrissey's songs, at least, 50% of the melody is written by the musicians, not just Morrissey.

Several producers including Toni Visconti have talked about what used to be called "arranging" ie. coming up with the music to back up the songs, is now called "writing". Historically, the musician would get credit for coming up with the vocal melody, not for writing the music.

And no, Morrissey writes the melody himself. Most of his collaborators have said so, including Johnny Marr.

 

[Dave]

Several producers including Toni Visconti have talked about what used to be called "arranging" ie. coming up with the music to back up the songs, is now called "writing". Historically, the musician would get credit for coming up with the vocal melody, not for writing the music.

And no, Morrissey writes the melody himself. Most of his collaborators have said so, including Johnny Marr.

arranging:3 a: to adapt (a musical composition) by scoring for voices or instruments other than those for which originally written

4. Music. to adapt (a composition) for a particular style of performance by voices or instruments.

I think you're confused with a remix.

 

[Danny_]

You're talking about the "tune", not the "song".

The song is tune/melody and words combined. In other words, what the singer sings. That's why the words "song" and "sing" are so similar.
A piece of guitar music isn't a song because there is no singing. It only becomes a song when a melody line and words are written for it.

 

[Worm]

Several producers including Toni Visconti have talked about what used to be called "arranging" ie. coming up with the music to back up the songs, is now called "writing". Historically, the musician would get credit for coming up with the vocal melody, not for writing the music.

And no, Morrissey writes the melody himself. Most of his collaborators have said so, including Johnny Marr.

Can we just talk in layman's terms?

Are you trying to say that "This Charming Man" would've come out more or less the same if Morrissey had written the song with Johnny Marr, Stephen Street, Boz Boorer or Alain Whyte?

 

[Danny_]

Can we just talk in layman's terms?

Are you trying to say that "This Charming Man" would've come out more or less the same if Morrissey had written the song with Johnny Marr, Stephen Street, Boz Boorer or Alain Whyte?

No it wouldn't have come out the same, but with different music you could still say the song was the same song.

Look, I'm not trying to denigrate any of Morrissey's collaborators here. I'm just arguing against the notion that Morrissey isn't a songwriter because "he only writes the words". For one thing that is factually wrong, he doesn't just write the words. For another, it's misunderstanding what the song is, the vocal melody is incredibly important to any song as it's usually the first thing people recognise, yet people seem to think that is unimportant and almost irrelevant to writing a song.

 

[Danny_]

yeah but if someone came up to me and was like "i wrote a song, wanna hear it?" and i said "sure!" and then they started just...singing to me, accapella, id be like "wtf? wheres your guitar?" so when i think of songwriting, i think of words AND music.

In conversations, if someone ever tries to make you remember a song, do they sing you the guitar part or the vocal part to get you to remember? Even if they had a guitar to hand would they just play you the guitar part? Of course not, because in a song the vocal is the heart of it.

 

[Dave]

The song is tune/melody and words combined. In other words, what the singer sings. That's why the words "song" and "sing" are so similar.
A piece of guitar music isn't a song because there is no singing. It only becomes a song when a melody line and words are written for it.

Exactly, which is why you are talking about the tune. The tune is the melody line. It becomes a song when it has been arranged, or harmonized.

 

[Dave]

a drumbeat with someone chanting in monotone can be a song. music usually requires melody, harmony, and rhythm.

Now, a song can be the "same song" with different music, or not. How many songs say "Baby, I love you" and are actually credited to different writers. I think that you could take the words to "this charming man" and make them into a different song with a different tune, still having the same lyrics. The lyrics are not the song. The melody line is the closest thing to being "the song", but...

if you listen to contemporary music, songs are remixed to have COMPLETELY different melodies, and rhythms, with only a vague connection to the original lyrics, and it is still registered the same way in the copyright.

 

[Danny_]

Exactly, which is why you are talking about the tune. The tune is the melody line. It becomes a song when it has been arranged, or harmonized.

You can have a song with no instrumental element at all. One person singing a melody with words is still a song. Many old folk songs are performed like this.

A person playing an instrumental solo is not a song. An orchestra playing is not a song either, not until someone sings a song over them.

 

[Not Right in the Head]

You can have a song with no instrumental element at all. One person singing a melody with words is still a song. Many old folk songs are performed like this.

A person playing an instrumental solo is not a song. An orchestra playing is not a song either, not until someone sings a song over them.

:

Is "The Draize Train" a song? "Green Onions"? "Rhapsody in Blue"? A kid banging out "Mary Had a Little Lamb" on a piano without singing?

 

[Worm]

:

Is "The Draize Train" a song? "Green Onions"? "Rhapsody in Blue"? A kid banging out "Mary Had a Little Lamb" on a piano without singing?

Those are compositions.

 

[Danny_]

:

Is "The Draize Train" a song? "Green Onions"? "Rhapsody in Blue"? A kid banging out "Mary Had a Little Lamb" on a piano without singing?

No. None of them are songs. Except perhaps the last one, it's an instrumental version of a known song.

 

[Worm]

No. None of them are songs. Except perhaps the last one, it's an instrumental version of a known song.

I'm starting to understand where you're coming from, and I guess I agree, but I think you're arguing semantics here.

If the point is to say that Morrissey is responsible for more than just words, okay. That's true. He has an impact on the music that can't be reduced to words and voice alone. I could state the obvious and counter that on every single Smiths sleeve it reads "Words: Morrissey / Music: Johnny Marr", adding the reminder that Morrissey's use of language is usually pointed, but as I agree with you in principle I won't be so obnoxious as to do that.

Still, however you explain the songwriting process, and describe who is responsible for which element, Morrissey's songs would collapse in a heap without the songs' instrumentals. I don't just mean that Morrissey's voice wouldn't sound as appealing "naked", but that a good deal of the force and power of the music is non-vocal. To my ears, "This Charming Man" would be a completely different song without Marr, Rourke and Joyce.

If you blur the line between the words and the music, that cuts both ways. We'd have to start talking about the emotional resonance of the synths in "There Is A Light" or the rhythm section in "Shakespeare's Sister". Do the instruments not convey moods, atmospheres, and thoughts just as vividly as the lyrics do?

I think we're ultimately left with the same, boring old concept of the mysteries of band chemistry.

 

[Danny_]

Again, I'm not denigrating the music or musicians at all. I'm not saying the music around the song isn't incredibly important in how it's perceived or in creating the mood. All I am saying is that the core of the song, the part that most people recognise as "the song" is the vocal melody and lyric. And that that part can exist on it's own as a recognisable song. It may not be as good without the music, or with different music, but it is still essentially, the song.