Faux commentary

“A song is a good indication – if you can write a song, you can write, full stop.”

I've heard this comment a few times. Mostly in reference to film and TV writing. Seems pretty insightful. Songs can be hard to write. Some say they’re the hardest of all literary forms. I’m guessing most people would back themselves as short story writers before they’d back themselves as song writers. Maybe that’s a dumb assumption. The kind of assumption that would work better if I was ‘most people’.

Like most assumptions, really.

Speaking as one individual person, and more specifically as a writer, I don’t find songs hard to write. I don’t find poetry hard to write. For me, poetry, songs and short stories rank on the lower end of the creative difficulty scale. They don’t take anywhere near the time and planning of a screenplay or novel.

I should clarify here that I do mean good poetry, good songs, good screenplays. And ‘good’ so far as general critical and popular acclaim is concerned (we can talk about popularity vs quality another time). Anyone can write something badly. Everyone thinks they could ‘make a better film than that’. I’m saying good songs are easier to write than good films. I'd even say more good songs exist than good movies. I might be wrong, but its my perception. Plus, it supports my argument, so... 

And that’s basically the reason I don’t agree with that opening quote. Even making allowances for project scale, there’s a big leap between song and movie.

And here’s why.

A movie script is all writing. If it’s good writing - yay. You’re in. There’s a slightly better chance it will be made into a great film. If a movie script is crap, then, hmm, it still might get made, and it still might fill seats, but the likelihood is, at some point, people will realise its bad and start calling it that.

Same with TV. It all starts with the words. Good directors and good actors can make a great script greater, but it’s hard to make a crappy script good. The script is the foundation and a weak foundation equals collapso-destructo.

But a song is different.

A song has music.

Duh, right? But have you ever watched a movie with the sound down? Say a scary bit, or a tense bit, or a sexy bit? Notice anything strange? Like how you’re not so affected by what’s happening? The creeper isn’t as creepy; the gun fight isn’t as epic; the sex is kind of... funny. It’s because there’s no music. And music has power. It can trick us, turn us, make us feel things that aren’t there or amplify things that are. And when it’s not there, we’re emotionally stunted, unless the filmmakers have allowed for it. But it always has a powerful place in the media. And no more so than in song.

It sounds dumb to say, but in songs the influence of the music is so great that a bunch of crap lyrics can slip by without us even noticing. It happens every day. Poor writing plays on our ears because the music behind it makes it seem meaningful, makes it warm, makes it strong, makes it important.

I saw an old interview with comedian, Bo Burnham, in which he described a stand up gig where he made fun of modern pop songs and then realised Justin Bieber was in the audience. His song, “Repeat Stuff” is about how the songs of boy bands refer to young women in very general terms, the idea being to make every young woman feel like the song was written for them. I love how your fingerprints are different from everybody else’s, how your eyes are that blueish-greenish-brown and how your hair kind of falls off your head. How you have two arms, one on each side of your body.

And it’s a good point. A lot of those songs don’t really say much about anything. Funny too, was my initial reaction when I heard Burnham talking about this. I was like, “But I don’t listen to those songs for the words...”

And there you have it. There are songs we don’t listen to for the words.

Because words in a song can matter, but they don’t have to. Not like words in a script. Or words in a poem. Or an instruction manual. Of all writing, songs are one of the only forms that don’t require good writing to be considered good. You could make an argument for blockbuster movies, sure. But there’s still a general awareness that those films aren't good in the deeper, soul affecting sense of the word. But not so for songs with bad lyrics. Loads of people cherish a good Beiber. Or Kesha. Or Redfoo. These are artists who make no claims of Shakespearean aspiration. They put out ‘catchy’ songs and loads of people love them.  Then you have songs like “Same love”, “Price tag” and “Happy” – songs that express something more meaningful through what is essentially poetry. And loads of people love these songs too.

But both are classified as good songs. Not because both are well written in terms of words, but because both are well written in terms of music. Lazy poetry elevated by kickin tunes.

Scripts and prose don’t have that luxury. They don’t use music til they’re made. When the scriptwriter is no longer involved. Until then they’re on their lonesome. If the words in them aren't good, they don’t even get read.

So being able to write a good song – at least as far as popular culture is concerned – is about being able to write good music. Which means being able to write a good song does not mean you can write a good anything else.

Because in the land of TV, film and prose, words are important. But in the world of popular music, it doesn't matter what the fox says, because he can sing.