Fri, 09/30/2011 - 13:00
Saw this last year, revisited it today when a friends posted it on facebook, and got more out of it this time round so I thought I'd share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wBOUJ5Mbrk
He is a bit annoying but a good speaker ... :-)
One hour 50, worth hanging in there, but here are a few nuggets that caught my ear:
Everyone loves your song when you play it at 10pm in a bar with good atmosphere and a beer or two
It won't work in the key money making time to the key audience -- busy mums at 7am on the car radio driving to into work
Singer is star / not loser / has to look good => No whiny songs
Your song has to make the singer look good to women
Detail is king <---- Very important
Know who your audience is
That audience will expect x,y and z which are pretty obvious when you think about them
$1m will be spent on your song so has to be great
Ralph used to write 100 songs year, demo 40, get 6 cuts, and a hit every 3rd year - a 1 in 300 strike rate
"Write smart"
Be aware of who you are
We trust people we perceive are like us -- likable or just like/similar
Listener is the enemy, have to overcome them
Songs are at a job interview
People looking for first excuse to ditch the song, [in less than 10 seconds]
Tell me a story, begining, middle, end
Write second verse first
Invite the listner in, set the background, don't exclude them
Pronouns: you and I, not he and she
Old form: Explanation -- intro - eg Sinatra My story is much too sad to be told etc.
M8 is to say 'but what if?' ie adds another dimension to the song, or adds extra new info
US 'Bridge' aka Lift aka Prechorus
M8 = UK 'Bridge'
Pop song has to last 22 weeks in the charts so keep some detail in there towards the end of the song too
Change some of the words of the scond prechorus to add new info if needed
Write through the ordinary to get through to the good
One great song a year (out of 100) is a good ratio over a lifetime
Like painters, you have to start with a load of still lifes of flowers before you move on to Guernica. Even Picasso did this.
"[even when you've had a few hits] you can never do want you want to do as a writer. You cna bring your own personal influences to what the industry wants, but in the long run it's always you give them what they want. "
Whiny songs can be done by using a story about 'he' and 'she' and then having the singer draw a nifty conclusion about them -- the singer is always a great person ...
The 'you' character always has to be great too because that's the listener and you want them to feel good
Fri, 09/30/2011 - 14:09
#2
Except that that's his job. I, like many others, have a day job too.
Sat, 10/01/2011 - 08:54
#4
I watched about 10 minutes, thought it was OK, and didn't think he was particularly annoying. But if the whole video was lecture, with no give and take, I would have gotten bored soon.
He does seem a bit adversarial with his take on the psychology of why one writes songs. Made me wonder if that's an attention-getting device and how much he really believes it.
As a writing teacher (and that's another reason a straight lecture format would be a turn-off to me), I find that many of the tips Songsville lists in the first post apply to writing in general. But not all the time.
I think once a person achieves a certain amount of success, he is tempted to share his "formula" for success with others as if it's one size fits all. Sure enough, a Google search of Murphy led me first to a book called something like "Murphy's Laws of Songwriting."
Murphy's bio, by the way, certainly gives him credibility. Did some producing in addition to writing. And he knew what he wanted from an early age. I found it interesting that he mentions money as a motivator so early in his talk - wanting to buy his mom a house.
Murphy's description of life with his mother sort of parallels my dad's upbringing. I can understand why growing up in those circumstances would make you look at your dreams, goals, and talents in a mostly businesslike way.
Sat, 10/01/2011 - 13:19
#5
Interesting stuff! I just watched the whole thing straight through and made lots of mental notes; he had my attention. I may try to write one last song today in the fi-ni-twi-light incorporating some of these ideas. Write one for that 25 year old lady driving a car that's ready to break down in the rain at 7 AM who just dropped off her kids, hates her job and barely tolerates her husband --- between weather, news, traffic and advertisements I got maybe the first minute for me to to invite her into my song.
Sun, 10/02/2011 - 10:28
#6
And now ol' Ralph has inspired my first post-5090 effort, called "Ten O'Clock Songs." Five hours late. Thanks, Ralph!
Mon, 10/03/2011 - 05:33
#8
I went backwards and forwards on this last year. At the end of the day, my opinion is there's nothing wrong with what he's saying... Except that it's very narrowly focussed on one specific kind of thing -- the professional songwriting scene out of Nashville.
You know, that thing that's got a reputation for being the kind of pedestrian, formulaic dross that killed the music industry.
So the best approach to it, I think, is to take the information on-board but not the attitude. Because the next Beatles, or Chuck Berry, or even the next Nirvana is never going to come out of that scene.
Mon, 10/03/2011 - 06:21
#9
I agree with Kim, I took the information, and I will handle it as I please.
But my mind is affected by the video. I can't help thinking what would happen if I apply his advice, thinking like the fish (the listener), and not like the fisherman (litte me)?
My 5090 song, I'm A Lotto Millionaire, makes the singer look bad. Suppose I change it to He's A Lotto Millionaire. Everybody would agree with the cool singer that the lotto millionaire is pathetic. Would I be selling out? Uhm, yeah. I just might do it anyway. It's just one song. Oh, and I would modify that other song too to fit his formula, and a third, but no more than five. Fifteen tops. Hell, I'll rewrite all my songs.
As a teacher he is very dogmatic, a lot of never-always-cannot-must. On the other hand, he speaks from experience, he has some good points, and he says explicitly (when he demonstrates his form 6) that in actual songwriting you are a lot more flexible, less formulaic, than when you teach.
I like the point about writing 100 songs a year, demo 40, cut 6, and have a hit every three years. One hit in 300. As a succesful songwriter. That puts things in perspective, and that is healthy.
Mon, 10/03/2011 - 09:14
#10
Yes indeed, Kim that is a good way to look at it.
Bong, I have also modified one of my songs. I already almost never do 'I'm so depressed' songs but I did one to see what it was like. I think changing it to he and she has helped the song in general as well as making me look cooler -- and goodness knows, I need all the help I can get! 
@levesninet, the 'listener is the enemy' phrase is more about what can you write that will overcome people's natural tendencies to seek the first little chink in the armour of your song that they can use to dissmiss it and switch off ... it does still jar as a phrase of course! I think it's just an attention-grabbing education concpet he has ... as long as you understand it in the context that the listener is actually king ...
Tue, 10/04/2011 - 09:40
#11
I agree about the Nashville mindset. It certainly doesn't work for me; my mind just doesn't work that way. On the other hand, when you have people like Steve Earle or Beth Nielsen Chapman or (your favorite here) working that vein, it's hard to say there's anything inherently wrong with it. I see it as scaffolding--while you're learning, maybe it gives you the structure you need to make something. Good old I-IV-V common practice era music theory might work the same way. Too much freedom can be paralyzing. But when you move from apprentice to master (a transition I guess you make mainly in your own mind) you have to be able to tear down that scaffolding. It may be that too many people think of the scaffolding as God's Truth, the right way to make songs, and not just a step on the path.
Wed, 10/05/2011 - 16:45
#12
I wrote: "Hell, I'll rewrite all my songs." But I am watching another Murphy video (practically identical, a condensed version that is half as long) in which he says a re-written song is never going to be a great song. So, thankfully I can give up on that.
Except I could (might still) go over my songs and look at them through his eyes.
Sun, 10/23/2011 - 08:14
#13
Yeah. I think one of the flaws in this kind of thinking is that it makes you concentrate on a handful of abstract, technical things about songwriting. It de-emphasizes the content -- you know, what the song is actually about. That's why, I think, his "rules" come across as a little glib and simplistic.
As a creative type, I have for the longest time been interested in what makes one thing successful and another thing not. It's not technical skill -- otherwise Dan Brown would not be a best-selling author. I think it's about the substance of what you write. That would include the subject matter you choose to write about, the general themes you explore, and the overall mood and style you choose for your work.
To be truly successful, I think, you have to:
(1) Find some sentiment or idea that a lot of people in your potential audience are feeling, but that...
(2) is not currently being expressed in popular culture, or maybe being actively ignored or disenfranchised.
(3) Then find a striking and memorable way to express that idea or sentiment.
I don't know very many extremely popular things that don't have at least an element of this. Harry Potter has it -- before JK Rowling came along, there weren't too many YA authors willing to write so frankly about how screwed-up and manipulative the adult world looks through an eleven-year-old's eyes. The Beatles had that. Elvis had it. The Occupy Wall Street protests may well have it.
But it's not quite as simple to pull-off as Ralph Murphy's songwriting rules -- which, of course, is why he doesn't talk about the substance of what to write (except to say that your target audience should be a young woman in her twenties). You need to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. You need to have your eyes open and see what's going on around you. And you have to be able to come up with a good turn of phrase, a fitting metaphor, just the right musical mood, or whatever you require to express the idea.
It's a bit of a tall order, but hey, that's why not everyone ends up writing a popular song. But in the end, it just boils down to this: if you see something and you feel it, and you suspect other people might feel it too, then write about it.
"Ralph used to write 100 songs year, demo 40, get 6 cuts, and a hit every 3rd year - a 1 in 300 strike rate"
Makes FAWM and 50/90 seem not so crazy after all.