Specific to Universal
Songwriting choices to connect with an audience
"Write from a personal place, always, but don't be too specific. Keep it more or less generic, so a wide range of people can relate" — Mariah Carey
I’ve been having an interesting conversation with Andres1 about our tastes in songwriting that’s worth sharing. I had expressed a preference for songwriting which is precise in the use of language and rooted in specific details (of either narrative or emotion). I have been influenced by a blog post I read years ago by Mike Taylor specific is universal in which he offers this example
In Papa Hobo, Paul Simon writes “I’ve been sweeping up the tips I made / I’ve been living on Gatorade”. He could easily have gone for a generic term like “soda” or “soft drinks”, or of course taken the more obvious route of picking beer or something harder. But by landing on the specific and idiosyncratic image of Gatorade, he’s given us something more solid to pin our imaginings onto.
Looking up that link, I spotted a comment by Gavin Burrows who nicely describes how that works in the construction of a song — “They’re like pegs, aren’t they? The way a rock climber will drive in pegs to attach himself to the rock face. You need the big expanse of the mountain, but you also needs the pegs to attach yourself to it.” That is an excellent description of something I appreciate in songwriting.
But Andres made the good point that this is partially a characteristic of genre. As he describes it, "The more artsy/independent/non-commercial (whatever we want to call it) the artist and song are, the more focus there will be on conveying a very specific type of emotion as the artist feels it’s the more genuine representation of the work in question. In contrast, as mainstream releases cater to a wide audience, the intention tends to be not to alienate anyone." and that part of what he likes about mainstream pop music is that possibility for, “an artist [who] manages to unite such a wide and diverse audience, filled with people from, literally, all walks of life”
That helps me see my own tastes. There are far too many examples to cover in one post so I will riff on that idea a bit (and feel free to add your own ideas in comments).
Being specific doesn’t require being wordy. I love Eilen Jewell’s, “Bang, Bang, Bang.” It isn’t a complicated song, but you know that it’s going to be distinctive as soon as you hear, “I saw [Cupid] down at the gun show.”
Whether writing either something specific or general what matters is connecting to the listener. A few years ago I read an article about the person behind Joni Mitchell’s “Carey” and it provided various autobiographical details but, impressively, it didn’t change how I heard the song2. The song is complete by itself; it has everything the listener needs to know, and having the backstory wasn’t important.
Similarly, details by themselves don’t always make that connection. I’m amused by the gearhead lines in “Little Deuce Coupe” by the Beach Boys (“She's got a competition clutch with the four on the floor / And she purrs like a kitten 'til the lake pipes roar”) but they don’t carry emotional weight for me.Another good example that isn’t from the folk or singer-songwriter genre is “Roadrunner” by Jonathan Richman (“Roadrunner, roadrunner / Going faster miles an hour / Gonna drive past the Stop ‘n’ Shop / With the radio on / I’m in love with Massachusetts / And the neon when it’s cold outside”)3. As Andres notes, that writing style does position himself as indie or an underdog of sorts — he’s not claiming to speak for a universal experience, he’s just a guy singing about driving around Massachusetts listening to the radio4.
There is great songwriting on either side of this discussion. I’m putting my thumb on the scale for a certain style of songwriting I like but, for example, most of the Great American Songbook is written to be “more or less generic.” Consider “Girl From Ipanema” — not incidentally, the second most covered song of all time (behind “Yesterday”). It feels completely grounded, and you can picture the entire scene, and yet the lyrics are not very specific. “Tall and tan and young and lovely / The girl from Ipanema goes walking” is not striking as a phrase. But I think it is good songwriting, the words all mean something; and it has a strong rhythm. Combined with the music it’s unforgettable.
There is probably a parallel between songwriting preferences and being a music-inclined or lyrics-inclined listener. Reportedly Martha Reaves initially thought that “Dancing In The Street” was too repetitive, and yet, that hook is undeniable. Speaking later on the song’s longevity she said, "It's a song that just makes you want to get up and dance"
I don’t want to be too schematic about this. I’m picking examples to highlight certain aspects of songwriting, but a lot of songs are mixed and fall somewhere in between. Consider “I Knew The Bride (When She Used To Rock and Roll)”. It makes use of the sort of specificity that I’m describing (“Take a look at the bridegroom smilin’ pleased as pie / Shakin’ hands all around with a glassy look in his eye”) but it isn’t really trying for verisimilitude, and you don’t get the sense that it’s about a specific person or a specific event. The two lines that follow that are, “He got a real good job and his shirt and tie is nice / But I remember a time when she would never even look him twice” which signal that the details aren’t that important. These are all stock characters and the song uses them as archetypes not individuals.
Performance is as important as songwriting. Part of what made my conversation with Andres interesting is the way that he connected these choices to performance decisions — how a song is presented and what that communicates to the audience. I’ll close with two examples that are dear to my heart.
First, I’ve written before about Rosalie Sorrels version of “Don’t Go Home” which I believe is a great gift by a singer to the songwriter. The song itself is specific, but it’s easy to imagine a version that is angrier and shallower (and perhaps that is why Utah Phillips never recorded it himself). She bring great empathy and creates a layered character portrait:Finally, I can’t think of a better example illustrating Andres point about independent vs commercial recordings than Curtis Mayfield’s cover of the Carpenters’ “We’ve Only Just Begun” which he introduces by saying “Now a lot of folks think this particular lyric is not appropriate for what might be considered ‘underground.’ But I think '‘ is whatever your mood or feeling might be at the time as long as it’s the truth. I think it’s very appropriate that we might lend a few words of inspiration about here.”
He takes a song which was originally written for a bank commercial (reportedly the Carpenters saw the commercial and asked to record the song) and transforms it into a tribute to African-American aspiration. In that context and his performance, the details which are generic become a reflection on the way that African-Americans were excluded from these symbols of suburban normalcy.
Except for providing an explanation for the line, “The wind is in from Africa / Last night I couldn’t sleep”
This also demonstrates they way that details create verisimilitude. As Andrew Hickey noted in a different comment on Taylor’s post, “There’s an interview I read … talking about Brown-Eyed Girl by Van Morrison, and saying that the line that makes the song is ‘behind the stadium with you’, because it’s so hard to imagine someone making up a strange detail like that that it makes you think that bit — and therefore by extension the whole song — must be true.”
For a contrast in style consider Tom Waits “Diamonds On My Windshield” — another lovingly detailed song about driving at night (“Metropolitan area with interchange and connections / Fly-by-nights from Riverside / And out of state plates running a little late / But the sailors jockey for the fast lane / So 101 don’t miss it”)
Provocative post, Nick!
I would offer Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen as two immensely popular artists whose songs are sometimes chockablock with details. For example, Scenes from an Italian Restaurant and Born to Run. (Also the Beatles, for example Day in the Life.)
I wonder if it's a genre thing, or related to the era the song is from. There has been a definite trend in underestimating the audience and dumbing things down in fiction and music for quite a few decades now, and maybe that is encouraging artists to make things more generic to appeal to a broader audience, especially in an era when the audience is quite fractured. Also wonder if it's more prevalent in pop.
Maybe suggest to Chris Dalla Riva that he do a post about this!
Both methods can be both relatable and standoffish. I am often brought into a song more deeply when the details are precise and unique. I don't have to have had the exact same experience, but if the specifics feel true to the story of the song, it helps me imagine it more sensorily. It's as if I can smell the burnt rye toast, hear the cackling of the crows outside the kitchen window, which never closes properly and lets in frigid air day and night.
But -- and this happens more in literature than in song for me -- if the details are odd, or stop me in my tracks trying to understand the connection, then I'm pulled out.
Having a wider view, where the emotional vibe is what matters, lets me add my own details. Often, these details are subconscious. We will fill in the blanks naturally.
This method is far more apt to lead to clichés and stereotypes, though. So it's a fine line. It takes a certain awareness to cast a wide net, to reach across more aisles, as it were, and avoid coming off as generic.
Intriguing topic you've raised here, Nick and Andy!