Does an artist have to write their own songs to be good?

Ayumi Hamasaki

Ayumi Hamasaki

It's a beautiful dream, but a dream is earned
Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
1,668
Location
Kentucky
Gil
21
Honestly, I don't think so. Writing a song doesn't equal to performing it. I think that several artists that don't write their own music are good.

And I mean if you need more proof, think of a cover you like more than the original song. I'm sure we can all think of a few. And when you do, you just proved the point. The artist covering the song didn't write it but that doesn't mean they can't perform it better.

What do you guys think?
 
You don't need to be able to write songs to be an artist imo. Using your voice to sing the songs is art in itself. Being the musician in the back while the singer sings is being an artist to me as well. Sure, writing your own songs as well makes you super talented but it's not required.

and I love Scissor Sisters version of Comfortably Numb better than the Pink Floyd Version ;) (please don't hurt me ;_; )
 
I believe you can still be a good performer without writing your own songs of course, but a musician that can't create music is a lousy one.
 
No, I don't think so, I mean I personally think a contribution of some kind might help, lyrics aren't one of them, singers will sing a million songs with the same meanings, unless they write songs with actual meanings then it may matter, it matters on how they perform though; however it will help if the contribute to the rhythm of the song if possible the choreography as well, or play instruments.

Just my opinion though; however I can honestly say I don't believe covers can ever be better than originals.
 
Yes and no.
Yes because writing your own songs means you're creative, but then there's a fair few artists who write their own songs and are shit. Covers are different, as most people try to change the song, bands rarely cover songs from the same genre.
If it's a popstar then definitely yes. I think popstars are shit anyway, but if they are writing the music and they aren't playing it then all they're doing is taking advantage of being good looking and being born with a decent voice, and they aren't talents.
 
In order to be an artist, you must create your own art. And in order to be a good artist, your art must be good. Performing works that belong to someone else well, only proves that you're a good performer and says little to none about your craft in music. You could probably consider rearrangements and things of that nature contain artistic contribution but nevertheless, it's the song writing and composition that truly reflect a musical mind.
 
Yes and No.

Like Cody says, a singer can rely on material from others and still be pretty fantastic; it's all about how they perform the song.

On the other hand, a singer-songwriter will tend to have more creativity and, usually, more critical respect, not to mention, I find it more believable when an artist is singing an emotional song when they've written it themselves; it's much more personal.
 
Who cares?

I think the artist needs to focus more on how he or she presents the song to the general audience. That alone is enough. If the artist is also able to compose his own songs, I suppose that's also a plus...

... And minus. It really depends on the person.
 
No, you don't have to have your own songs to be good, but at the same time it does show that you have more creativity and flair if you do have your own songs.
 
Most of the time, yes. Of course there have been some great artists who didn't write their songs but they tend to be few, and are usually true greats.
 
I have more respect for people who write their own music, hence why I have more respect for someone like Lady Gaga who at least writes her own music, compared to Ke$ha who just sings what she's told to. Not only that but I think a composers insight into any music is more valid than a non-composer; hence why I think Johnny Cash's covers of songs like Hurt or Solitary Man tend to be superior even to the originals, because he wrote his own music he had greater insight into the workings of that music.
 
charliepanayi said:
Most of the time, yes. Of course there have been some great artists who didn't write their songs but they tend to be few, and are usually true greats.
Click to expand...

?? I don't get this. How can you be a truly great artist if you aren't even capable of making a solid piece of work you can call your own?
 
It's generally a thing fans of rock music believe, authenticity = good.
There are covers which are better than the original, all along the watchtower comes to mind, but if you are able to take someone else's song and make it your own, then I think that makes an artist good.
I'd say they can be good without being the writer. A lot of Motown's music was written by three people, Holland, Lamont and Holland, and was preformed by Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, The Tops and so on.
 
Well, an artist can be many things, not necessarily associated with music. If the artist is classified as a musician, then writing their own music is sort of what they're supposed to do. If they didn't write the song, then they're not a musician. If they performed the song, then they're an entertainer. Basically they're like a magician. You're only going to be entertained by what you see, not what you hear. And if the music isn't something you see, necessarily, its something you hear. Entertainment for the ears, if you will. If someone is performing a song they didn't write, then I won't credit them for the song, but the performance.
 
I was talking to Steve about this the other night.

I think that writing your own songs says a lot about the artist. I think for them to write their own song and then perform it is very talented and shows how hardworking they are.

When artists perform other people's work, I can't help but think that they don't even really understand what they're singing about sometimes and that to them it might not feel as meaningful because it isn't something that they've written.

But that's only with some artists. The majority of artists are talented just by performing the song. They're the ones with the awesome voice and know how to entertain the crowd. =)

So in answer to your question, I don't think that an artist has to write their own songs to be good.
 
Any good singer can get a song written by someone else and perform it well, and be good, but to be great i think you need both the creativity and the voice - you dont even need to be the best singer in the world as long as the song you've penned is great. Its easier to be better at singing than producing a really good song i think
 
OverFjell said:
I have more respect for people who write their own music, hence why I have more respect for someone like Lady Gaga who at least writes her own music, compared to Ke$ha who just sings what she's told to. Not only that but I think a composers insight into any music is more valid than a non-composer; hence why I think Johnny Cash's covers of songs like Hurt or Solitary Man tend to be superior even to the originals, because he wrote his own music he had greater insight into the workings of that music.
Click to expand...

OverFjell

Cleary ill informed. Ke$ha writes her own music just as well as Gaga, and has written several songs for others as well. She just doesn't feel the need to BRAG about it every day.
 
OverFjell said:
I have more respect for people who write their own music, hence why I have more respect for someone like Lady Gaga who at least writes her own music, compared to Ke$ha who just sings what she's told to. Not only that but I think a composers insight into any music is more valid than a non-composer; hence why I think Johnny Cash's covers of songs like Hurt or Solitary Man tend to be superior even to the originals, because he wrote his own music he had greater insight into the workings of that music.
Click to expand...

Ke$ha writes her own music same as Gaga, just differently styled, Ke$ha even plays Guitar I believe. KeSha has even written songs for Britney Spears, Miranda Cosgrove etc.

Writing lyrics doesn't really matter or make a difference when it comes to pop, because they all basicallly write the same stuff -- it only really makes a difference in rock -- because they deal with realistic problems and thing in life.
 
I think there's a difference between an artist (in the musical sense) and a musician.

I believe an artist is someone who is creative. Therefore, they create. They make their own stuff. They write their music based on... whatever. They tell a story. Whether it's about love, past experiences, trauma, angst, etc. They, again, create.

Then you have a musician who is more or less just someone who plays an instrument or sings. They have musical ability but lack the writing ability. They typical tend to be the kinds of folk who have their music written for them and they just merely perform it, or do covers.

That's my opinion anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top