Why Do Songwriters Feel The Need To Explain Their Songs At Shows?

[lirecordings]

Hi folks,

 

New to the site, and looking forward to digging into discussion. I'd like to pose a question that has been bothering me lately, and it comes down to trying to understand why people feel the need to explain or "set-up" their songs to the audience when performing.

 

Let me present a scenario. Singer-songwriter X begins to randomly strum the opening chords of his/her song, and instead of launching into it, the voice-over begins: "I spent a year in Tulsa, and ohhhhh man was it hot - so hot that one night we opened up all the windows and let the bugs fly right in. This is a song about that."

 

Then come the opening lyrics - "I saw your wings as you flew through the air / I couldn't help but to pause and to stare" (I'm making this up on the fly - get it - here, so...)

 

This kind of thing happens more and more often I feel like - particularly with singer-songwriter/folkies that I see perform lately - and I have to say that I cringe harder and harder each and ever time. The above scenario can turn what might otherwise be a good song into something trite and contrived, IMO. 

 

Consider the lyrics in the above example. If the person didn't tell you that it was literally written about bugs flying in through their window, is that something your mind would immediately go to? It could be interpreted to be about a lover, an airplane in the sky...whatever.

 

The point is that the mind naturally moves towards what is familiar and allows us to interpret art in ways that we understand as individuals. With this in mind, that same song could mean something entirely different to one person than it does to another, and when it is explained point-blank, the mystery and personalized experience for the listener is completely lost (unless they can relate to bugs flying in through their window and wanting to write a song about it). 

 

I understand the interest a musician might have in connecting with the audience and that this could be a potential vehicle for that, but in my opinion it is an insult to the listener. A song should stand on its own, and to feel the need to explain it is basically perpetuating the mindset that the listener is not intelligent or savvy enough to interpret it themselves. Isn't setting a mood with one's music enough? 

 

Ultimately, my question here comes down to this: Why do songwriters feel the need to explain or set-up a song, and what positive benefits actually come from this outside of the thrill of talking about one's self in front of an eager crowd?

Edited July 15, 2013 by lirecordings

[john]

Interesting topic. It doesn't just happen at gigs, quite a few songwriters preface songs or lyrics with the story of the lyrics... kind of a pre-emptive strike. To me your lyrics either contain enough to connect with in the way the writer wants or they don't. A wriyer prefacing in this way I think is ofyen the result of the lyricist being regularly asked about their songs, and rather than improve their writing to address it, they feel a need to justify it and explain it in order to head off potential negative comments. Don't get me wrong, not all songs need to answer all of the questions they pose and sometimes leaving something unexplained can promote discussion... but if that is intentional... why explain before people hear or read it? That just doesn't make sense.

Talking is certainly a common way to establish a connection at a gig. You know, "A funny thing happened on the way to the gig...." etc. Perhaps it's that the need for something to say to the audience, accompanied by a lack of anything interesting to say, is satisfied with the story of the song? Killing two birds with one stone.

[Just1L]

I've always thought it was so the band could get more personal with the audience. I used to love listening to David Lee Roth at Van Halen concerts. I could never get that kind of connection anywhere else. I also thought that it was to give the other band members a rest and change up their equipment. There has been a few times I've felt it was to help kill time and get through the show. 

 

I saw Arlo Guthrie a few years back and I love his tunes, but he has so many interesting stories they were equally as good and appreciated as the music itself. He's a great performer.

[john]

I've always thought it was so the band could get more personal with the audience. I used to love listening to David Lee Roth at Van Halen concerts. I could never get that kind of connection anywhere else. I also thought that it was to give the other band members a rest and change up their equipment. There has been a few times I've felt it was to help kill time and get through the show. 

 

I saw Arlo Guthrie a few years back and I love his tunes, but he has so many interesting stories they were equally as good and appreciated as the music itself. He's a great performer.

 

Sure talking to the audience between tracks establishes that connection, but the best interactions are often some tale of what the band has been getting up to, or a funny story related to the song... what is relatively new, in terms of being quite so commonplace, is prefacing a song performance with the description of what the song is about. Sure that did feature, but these days it is very very common as the go to banter between songs... and yes, one of the main reasons was to allow musicians to change patches, settings, instruments and even outfits!

[LayneGreene]

I know a few guys who do this because it makes them more comfortable playing the songs. It also gives them a little break, if you know you get nervous when performing sometimes it's good to take a second to get back in the moment.

[lirecordings]

 

It's a well known fact that audiences get song & lyrical meanings wrong all the time. 

 

Here's the thing; I don't believe in the concept of lyrical meaning being right or wrong. If it means something in particular to the songwriter, than that's great. If the listener takes something entirely different from it, then that's what it it means to them; it's not wrong, it's just a personal interpretation. This is the magic of music and art.

 

I'll add perhaps my favorite quote on the subject from David Lynch on why he doesn't explain his films:

 

 

“I refuse to give explanations of any film I make. Films can be abstract and abstractions exist in everyday life and they give us a feeling, and our intuition goes to work, and we make sense of it for ourselves…Watching a film is like standing in front of a painting. It’s talking to you and it’s about a circle from the screen to the viewer to the screen to the viewer. Once that circle starts rolling, the same films can be seen 100 different ways by 100 different people. That’s why I refuse to explain my films.â€

 

[john]

Good quote, and I more or less agree, although as ever it is a matter of perspective. Music is also about communiication.

 

The songwriter has his/her interpretation, which may also include an intended message to the listener

 

The performer can influence the message being delivered

 

The listener hears the message and then interprets it, leaving them with an understood meaning.

 

From the perspective of simply having an interpretation of the core song, there is no right or wrong.

 

However, from the perspective of "has the intended message been delivered and understood" then yes that could have been successful or not successful as a communication.

 

Songs can have different purposes:

1. If you are writing a song that is an issue song, intended to deliver a message to the listener, failure to deliver the intended message can be catastrophic.
2. if you are writing a song that is more abstract in nature, or simply tells a story with no real message attached, then communication of a set message is more or less unimportant.

there are no doubt more.

 

Every song will be a mix of purposes, each of which can be successful or not. For some facets of the song success in relation to the intents of the songwriter can be very critical, or not.

[lirecordings]

Good points, John; I hadn't thought of the "topical" part of the scenario. I guess it comes from my own personal perspective, since 99.9% of the songs I write are able to be interpreted in a bunch of different ways, and I don't even know if any of them are right to ME. The meaning I take from my own songs can change day by day. That's why I write them.

Edited July 15, 2013 by lirecordings

[lirecordings]

Damn. We're gonna be friends

[TapperMike]

I go out to see bands perform on average once or twice a week in various venues and of varying genre's.  There is the one classic rock act that drives me up a wall.  They are good at playing covers but the singer talks through almost half the show.  What's funny about Ms Talkalot and the Occasionals is that in a fairly sedate easy going atmosphere the crowd complained both to the venue management and to the artists.  The next time I saw them at the same location I and about a 1/4 of the crowd got up and left, when she started her insatiable yammering.

 

I'm fine with most shows where the performer sets aside some time for banter.  But when you have a two hour show they take a half hour break and then it's nothing but talk for another half hour or more it really devalues the experience.

[Robbue]

I think this happens more and more now due to all the unplugged and story-telling shows that are on TV.  Most often times I cant even make out what they are saying just due to poor acoustics of the venue coupled with the singer moving the mic around and not holding it up to their mouth when they do talk.  THAT drives me nuts. 

[Guest]

 Why do songwriters feel the need to explain or set-up a song, and what positive benefits actually come from this outside of the thrill of talking about one's self in front of an eager crowd?

 

I s'pose different individuals get different things out of it but, in response to the second part of your question... I submit that many performers do not get a thrill from it. If you consider that a lot of performers actually have feelings of inadequacy, maybe you can see that they feel they have to explain ---or somehow bolster--- their work; that, if they jabber a lot, it might take some of the spotlight off of the work. Or maybe if they win over the audience the reception for a new song will be kinder.

 

Just another perspective...

[lirecordings]

Eek. Why play music in front of people if you feel as if it's inadequate? 

[KateSmith]

They just need to show their talent, their creativity to people!! Nothing strange in it!

[midnighthowler]

Hello all .... I don't usually post unless I'm really passionate about a subject ... and this is one i feel strongly about ......... this is strictly one mans opinion ..me ......lol ....... I think there is a big difference in ONCE and awhile explaining how song came about it its something really unique and short or cool .... but I live in Nashville and I can tell you 999 out of 1000 Times it is not something unique and short or cool ....... almost ALWAYS, the writer using an introduction to song to say things that SHOULD have been IN the verses or bridge a well written song ..... sometimes even the chorus ..... if a song is well crafted ,in MOST situatipns,a writer should be able to play the song with NO introduction and it should make sense and be clear to everyone ... the song should stand alone ....... I believe with all of my heart if you need an introduction , its really a rewrite that you need

[Guest]

midnighthowler, I think you nailed it there! And I'd like to apply all of this to the practice of songwriters @ songstuff ---or any other songwriter board--- offering explanations about their songs.

 

Having said that, I'm gonna start a new thread about that particular phenomenon.

[Bedrocker]

I'm of the view that everything has its place, depending on the circumstances.  Obviously, none of us want to be bored to death by some artist rambling on about things that should be accessible to the listener through the song itself.  Having said that, I have been to concerts where an explanation has resulted in my enjoying the song more.  This is particularly true where I'm new to a particular artist and their material, or where lyrics have been deliberately obscured for a reason (to avoid political repression, banning etc).   It is also applicable where a songwriter may use, for what is for him or her, local expressions or jargon, landmarks, events and public figures.     

 

It's a bit like when you're studying poetry.  You can read it and interpret the contents for yourself, all of which make wonderful sense - until you read the study guide and find that, as much as you enjoyed it, your understanding of the content is far removed from what the marker would be looking for.  So, yes, there is pleasure in reaching your own conclusion about songs and lyrics but you may not necessarily share the writer's interpretation or intention. 

 

Being in a band which does 50% original material at gigs, I avoid giving explanations if we're playing on our home turf.  There's no need to say anything because everyone understands the context.  If, however, we play away from home base, I would provide a preamble to songs, where necessary.  We tend to play in front of multi-cultural/lingual audiences where we do not share common backgrounds, values or perspectives.  One has to be especially careful with innuendo, irony and humour as, in trying to be innocently funny, it may, at the very least, not be appreciated and, at worst, cause insult.   We spend a lot of time trying to understand our audiences in the hope that we end up making friends and not enemies!

 

We've also realised, over the years, that things that are patently obvious to us, as songwriters, are sometimes not that obvious to listeners.  Some years ago, when most people were on modem dial-ups to access the internet, we prefixed the recording of one of our songs with that sound.  It was at the height of the Metallica spat with Sony over music copyright, file sharing and piracy.   We made the mistake in thinking that, because we were interested in this topic and followed developments closely, everyone else did, too.  Wrong!!   In seeking to create a connection, at the beginning of the CD, in the listener's mind between listening to music and piracy all we did was provide people with a pretext for returning our albums saying there was "Something wrong with it"!  It was surprising how many people never went beyond the dial-up sounds.  Those who persevered and allowed the dial-up to run into the actual song actually "got it".  We think, anyway.  In order to get radio play, we edited out the dial-up sounds.  (I know I could be accused of mixing up songwriting techniques with production but I'm using this example to illustrate a point about perspectives and mindsets).

 

I guess the bottom line is not to be patronising and boring.  If there's a good reason for believing that an explanation will enhance the listener's experience, so be it.  As always, a sensible balance is required.