Composers, Singers, and Instrumentalists
Composers, Singers, and Instrumentalists
These three occupations are not commonly combined. Opera singers don’t compose and play an instrument as well as sing. Lead guitarists usually don’t sing as well as play. Composers are rarely performers of note. There are exceptions, but the demands of each occupation are liable to encroach on the other occupations. Has anyone ever been a great composer and a great singer and a great instrumentalist? Each of these is difficult enough, requiring specialized skills, so combining them is beyond normal human capabilities. There has to be a division of labor: writing, playing, singing. It is reasonable to suppose that doing all three will detract from achievement in any one of them. One will usually dominate. In particular, songwriters are not usually great singers, nor singers great songwriters. Excellence in each of them competes with excellence in the others. How many ace drummers are fine singers or songwriters (Buddy Rich?). Does Celine Dion write her own stuff and accompany herself on piano? Did Leiber and Stoller ever perform their own songs? That’s the rule. People specialize, as they do elsewhere (has anyone ever been a great athlete, musician, and intellectual?). There is a psychological law at work here: to succeed you have to specialize. You have to beone thing or the other, single-mindedly, exclusively.
You might reply that there is a notable exception to this law: the Beatles. There are partial exceptions: people who successfully combine composing, singing, and playing an instrument (Elton John, Billy Joel, Bob Dylan, Prince). But the Beatles seemingly succeeded in being preeminent songwriters, tremendous singers, and gifted players; in particular, they managed to be outstanding performers and brilliant songwriters. Perhaps they were the best ever in this combination of talents. And yet, laws are laws: everyone is subject to them. So, we must ask: did the Beatles suffer from under-specialization? Did they try to do too much? Did they stretch themselves too thin? I fear the answer is yes. They notoriously wrote songs to deadlines, failed to become master instrumentalists, and didn’t develop real singing chops. Oh, they were good at all three, no question, but could they have been better if they had limited themselves? My suspicion is that they could have been better songwriters had they not performed so much and so well. I don’t think their later songs are as good as their earlier songs, though they are often excellent. It feels as if they are doing a job not responding to an inspiration. I think No Reply is much better than Norwegian Wood, for example. Songs take time to appear and develop; they can’t be forced. That’s why people often write only a few great songs, or even just one (e.g., Hang on Sloopy). The Beatles suffered from songwriter’s fatigue; John was notoriously dissatisfied with many of their later songs. Yes, Lennon and McCartney were great songwriters, but they could have been better. They needed more time and focus. There are occasional gems (Strawberry Fields, In My Life), but often they are fairly routine ditties by their exalted standards. George latterly produced some outstanding songs, but he had more time to do it. I wonder whether when the Beatles broke up, they were half-consciously aware of the problem: how could they keep on advancing musically given the pressure of three different forms of musical ability? They needed to Get Back, but there was no way back. Certainly, their post-Beatles output shows signs of fatigue. Their first couple of albums were free of this problem precisely because they did not compose all the songs. They were trying to do the humanly impossible. Imagine asking Pavarotti to compose his own operas, sing them, and perform the musical accompaniment; it won’t happen. The Beatles were just plain overworked.
Speaking of myself (excuse the bathos), I don’t sing and play the guitar at the same time—the singing is hard enough on its own. And when I am writing a song, I am not thinking of performing it; just writing it is a difficult task in itself. These are separate abilities, one not entailing the other. I always think I am really a drummer: that’s where my main talent lies—the rest is amateur hour. I actually think Lennon and McCartney were mainly composers; performing was secondary.[1] Ringo, however, is a born performer—and George was an enigma.
[1] When they sang covers, they were selecting if not composing: they chose according to their own musical tastes. And they also had to compose a way of covering the song—so they were partially composing. Arranging is a type of composing. I would particularly cite Anna, Twist and Shout, and You’ve Really Got a Hold on Me, among many others.
“(has anyone ever been a great athlete, musician, and intellectual?)”
Paul Robeson comes close. He was an All-American college football player and played for the NFL. As a singer, he was a musician; I’d distinguish serious singers, like Robeson, whose voices are their musical instruments, from pop singers. And he was a lawyer, if not an intellectual in the academic sense.
He comes close, obviously exceptionally talented.
I’m not the only Billy Joel fan; he is a great pianist, a great composer plus a brilliant songwriter- his lyrics differ from the Beatles, he is a dramatist, even theatrical, though his lyrics come from everyday life, even mundane, he elevates the quotiidian- on top of it he is a great psychologist. Billy Joel hit the tirfecta and maybe the triple crown
Is he also a great singer? I rate him along with Bruce Springsteen: good but not great. I would never intentionally listen to a Billy Joel song, though I see why he’s popular.
I take that back, you mentioned Billy Joel
Bach would be a good example of a great composer who was also a great performer and notable extemporizer (or jammer perhaps in today’s parlance).
I think though there is another issue here. I have worked with many drummers and a number of producers (not talking big names btw), but one of the big issues is overplaying, drummers love to play (obviously) they want to show us how good they are – they want the exercise to be interesting for themselves. The problem is when you are dealing with mainstream pop rock – it just gets in the way of the song – the song ultimately has to come first. Be it drums, guitar or voice, showing off (or waffle) just gets in the way of the emotions of the piece and the track is carefully arranged around the singing/lyric so there shouldn’t be too much distraction outside of solos. Brian May is a great soloist and writer in my view, but he’s always careful for the solos to relate to the song even when it makes them, less technically challenging than he could have made them.
Speed is not the sole element of virtuosity, but take a piece of bluegrass played at its normal fast tempo – it’s impressive, however compare it to a slowed down version and suddenly its harmonic nature and emotion comes alive. Musician’s can’t help but show off, but who really likes the 3rd disc on All Things Must Pass?
Macca’s bass parts in Getting Better and with A Little Help have nice melodic elements, but their harmonic nature always serves the songs first. I’m the other way round with The Beatles btw, I much prefer the later stuff.
Coming back to Mr Prolific (in all senses of the word) Bach, he certainly loved a bit of waffle, but I don’t think it’s an accident that probably his greatest piece of music is Air On A G String, nothing is superfluous, no pointless runs of extra notes, just beautiful layers intertwining, working together to bring us the emotion, the pain, sadness, joy and wonder. The slower the version, the better in my view.
Anyway I shall cease my sweeping generalisations.
damn apostrophe
I corrected them.
I totally agree with these points, especially with reward to drummers. Drums are also about emotion. With songs my philosophy is “Go for the jugular”.