What makes a filk song "good?"

[figmo]

Other than the obvious "make sure the scansion and meter fits the original" when writing a parody, what makes a filk song an "award-winner" vs. "forgettable" (or one you'd like to forget)?

I don't know whether my own judgement is "off," but some of the songs that seem to jump out and grab the bulk of the filk community wouldn't even register with me had I not been figuratively clunked over the head with them. I'm wondering what I'm missing and hoping I'll pick up some pointers that might help my own songwriting.

Any and all opinions are welcome.

Comments

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

Gosh. I haven't figured that out either, although several successful writers could give you (and me) some good tips that would help.

If I knew the answer myself, I could get 100% right on every Pegasus ballot I've ever filled out!

:-)

-- Dave Alway

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, the Pegasus ballot is supposed to be "which songs/people do YOU think are the best in these categories?" rather than "can you guess which songs/people will be the Pegasus winners?"

So provided you filled in your favorites, you're 100% correct no matter how things turn out.

The Fundamental Disputation About Art

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

Ah! And here we are, arrived at the Fundamental Disputation About Art:

Do people like any sort of artistic endeaver because it is good; or is a work of art good because lots of people like it?

:-)

[aliza250.livejournal.com]

Humor.
Gripping characters and plot.
Singable words.
A twist/tie-in on the theme of the original.
Generic appeal, as opposed to songs that only appeal to those who are fanmiliar with a specific work.

[vixyish.livejournal.com]

If you're talking strictly parodies, there are two things that always get *me* when I listen:

1. Clever lyrics. Rhyming and scansion to the original, yes, but clever plays on the original so that if you know the original it's just a delight. (My favorite example is the Unicorn song, where the line "I've got your cats and rats and elephants" is parodied in Jordin's Unified Field theory song as "I've got a cat but that's irrelevant.")

*but*! At the same time they have to appeal to people who *haven't* heard the original, too-- my husband loves that parody just as much as I do, and he had never heard the original. Because the line is also a joke about Shroedinger's cat, which physics geeks (the song's audience) are going to know about. Which brings me to:

2. Humor. Not just humor, but humor that doesn't get tired. Ever heard a parody that had a single great punch line-- and then just kept repeating it? That's a no go for me. If it has many verses, each verse needs to add something new, have a different punch line or a new variation on the theme, do *something* to carry the joke *further*-- not just restate the joke in different words. I've heard a lot of full-length parodies that really should've just been two-line between-song gags like Jeff does, because that's all the joke could carry.

And again, that humor needs to appeal to as broad a range as possible. Some parodies are *great* that are only funny to viewers of a certain show, and that's fine. I've heard (and even written) parodies where the science jokes had to be explained to me. But the more appeal, the better-- like the way Jordin's song appeals to both my geeky husband and my songwrite-y self.

:)

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

Generally, I've found that people, even if they don't grasp how actually "clever" the lyrics are on a conscious level, can somehow register it unconsciously. Language tends to do that. Parodies can work on various levels - as a mockery of the original song, as a surprising twist on the original song - or if not surprising, as a horrible horrible pun ("Wok Like A Man"). Even if one doesn't get the in-jokes, if the song itself describes a funny situation it can be funny on its own ("Banned From Arkham", even if you don't know Lovecraft, is funny because it describes an ever increasing level of chaos).

Humor is hard. As EB White put it, explaining it is like dissecting a frog - it can be done, but the frog usually dies in the process. Puns are always a start, but they're throwaway and forgettable.

"Do You Hear The Pipes, Cthulhu?" works because of a couple of different angles - one, the sweet, catchy tune of a pop song being applied to something horrible and twisted... and the fact that people *think* ABBA is horrible and twisted to begin with, so the idea of mating it with another horrible and twisted thing like Cthulhu seems appropriate. Also, the lyrics manage to cleverly (and with correct scansion) work in phrases evocative of Lovecraft's work - "eldritch vapors", "thousand dooms", "without sanity", "lost souls shrieking", and of course the alliterative tricks used, like the aforementioned "sanity or shame" "resounds with all the sounds" are standard English tricks to make the song more memorable.

As I've remarked in writing workshops, nothing improves writing better than studying and understanding English practical criticism, i.e. the tools that writers use. Know your tools, and you can sculpt anything.

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

Tastes differ; that's life. Beyond that, the nature of "award-winning" songs is a combination of at-least-decent writing and filkers' zeitgeist. Hmmn... that doesn't really answer your question, I know.

Let me back up and say that each songwriter can both play to her or his strengths and also stretch skills deliberately. Classic case: Michael "Moonwulf" Longcor writes gorgeous melodies and lyrics. But, teased with that reputation, he then wrote "Rhinotilexomania," which is one of the funniest gross-out songs I've ever heard. Know your strengths in songwriting. Use them. Then develop others.

One of your strengths, if no one has hit you over the head with it, is setting up an ironic contrast between the melody and the lyrics. You do that repeatedly over two or three verses, and I'm on the floor. I suspect it's because you have a "sweet" voice, and so you can use the contrast between your tone and the lyrics (though I don't know what goes on in your head when writing). But since you have that voice, you should also write serious songs that can use it to good effect in a different way. (See Sherman open mouth. See Sherman stick foot in mouth because he doesn't know Lynn's repertoire.)

I know that I can write a sing-along. That's something I deliberately pushed myself to do 5-10 years ago, in part because I started writing each song with writing and working with the chorus. In the last few years, I've written an average of one love song a year—not necessarily coinciding with Valentine's Day, but you get the picture. And so locally (if not in other circles), I have the reputation of writing romantic songs.

There's also a skill in covering other people's songs that can help songwriting, I'm convinced. When I knew I was coming out to Consonance a few years ago, I scrambled to find songs from Southeast filkers that (a) I could cover competently and (b) would be crowd-pleasers or -stunners. In doing so, I had to think very carefully about how an audience was listening to and interacting with a song. In some cases, I decided to do a song where I could get that interaction going. In others, I had to think about it quite a bit. And in one case, I knew that I could perform the song better than the songwriter could and get an audience to listen to it more carefully. In another (Larry Kirby's "Redneck Pagan"), I changed the melody because I thought I could do it better with that melody and get the crowd going better with that than with his chosen melody (which is fine, but which I knew I'd muff).

[hrrunka]

The songs I remember are the ones that provoke some strong emotion. Could be that shiver-down-the-spine response, or tears-in-the-eyes, can't-breathe-for-laughing, warm-and-comfortable, whatever; but if it doesn't have something like that (and quite a bit of it can come from performance rather than writing) I'll probably forget the song sooner or later....

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Exactly the same happens with all awards, so don't fret. At least with the filk ones I can usually see where the voters are coming from (because I know people who do think that X is the greatest song ever), whereas for mundane awards I'm left in despair at the poor taste of the judges (or the worse taste of the public) because I don't know anyone who even likes the winner.

Incidentally, your 'obvious' isn't even true either. Some very clever parodies don't fit the scansion of the original very well, or even the tune, but are still recognisable.

Remember that awards are essentially popularity contests. A song which is heard in a lot of places sung by a good performer will win over a technically 'better' song which is only heard locally or isn't performed as well. And songs which have particular significance in certain places can sometimes win if all the people in those places vote for it because it's special to them, regardless of its technical quality.

(Personally, I rarely appreciate songs without music, which is why I rarely comment on ones posted on rmf or wherever unless I know the tune (or at least a tune that fits)...)

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Well, for me the biggie is lyrics. The music is the engine, the lyrics are the payload.

I like lyrics that are rich in images and clever ways to put things--the oldest cliche can be expressed a new way and evoke poignant delight. I like lyrics that have a point--that tell a story, usually, or develop a single theme or point of view while tying it in widely to many aspects of the world.

I like melodies that fit the lyrics, that put the greatest emotional intensity of the melody over the greatest emotional intensity of the lyric line. I like melodies that are flowing (stepwise) but have enough jumps and unexpected turns in them that they aren't predictable and boring.

Hmm. That's all I'm thinking of right now. If it helps any, there are some songs that grab the bulk of the filk community that don't grab me either. Tastes differ.

[happyfunpaul.livejournal.com]

Wow! Some great comments everyone has made; they've really gotten me thinking. I still have not figured out a coherent response, so I'll just throw out various ideas in rambling fashion...

First, one note: there's likely to be a bias, in comments people make, toward lyrics. It's not an intentional bias, it's just that it's easier to analyze and discuss what makes good lyrics, rather than good melody, harmony, overall "sound", and performance. Like vixyish and catsittingstill and many others, I really appreciate good, clever words, probably more so than typical music fans (but not necessarily typical filk fans). Certainly, in my own songwriting, I have much more confidence that I might write clever, funny lyrics than I can write beautiful (or even catchy) melodies.

It's harder to talk about what makes a song musically "catchy" and "likable" than it is to talk about clever lyrics. And it's even harder to talk about stage personality and performance (which apply even to audio-only recordings). Nevertheless, the music and musicianship are still very important, at drawing me into a song initially and at keeping me "coming back for more".

It's also harder to talk about serious songs than funny songs, because the former rely less on lyrics and more on emotional flow, connection, and other hard-to-define topics.

I'm probably not the best person to talk about good serious filk songs anyway. Truthfully, there are very few serious filk songs that I like (and I've only written one myself, so far-- and even that has a couple laugh lines).

In fact, let me be blunt-- the vast majority of filk (most definitely including my own) is not professional caliber. But as an audience member, I'm going to lower my standards-- make a judgment based on "fun" instead of as purely "musical performance"-- for songs that (1) are funny, (2) refer to stories and concepts I know, and/or (3) are performed by people I know. Conversely, if a filk (or other) song is serious, is about a story with which I'm not familiar (and the song doesn't stand on its own and the performer doesn't make a pre-song explanation to bring me into it) and is performed by someone I don't know well... well, chances are, I'm going to be bored by it, however superficially pretty the song (and, for that matter, the performer) might be. Unless they're a really, really good, professional-quality performer.

Mind you, those three reasons are also what make "popular filk" different from most "popular music". Regarding humor, most mainstream artists don't want to be "too funny" because they want to be regarded as serious musicians. (One of the reasons I'm fond of several Canadian bands is that they do seem freer to mix music and comedy... but note how the Barenaked Ladies, for instance, are downplaying their humor now, presumably because they are tired of not being respected as serious musicians.) Regarding familiarity-with-concepts, most mainstream songs are familiar enough, but are too general, whereas good filk can talk about topics that are more specialized and not seen elsewhere (but again, if the topics too specific, they limit the potential audience). And finally, regarding familiarity-with-performer, part of the fun of filk is that it's a small enough group of people that many of us know each other and can learn from one another. (Conversely, sometimes it can get too clique-ish.)

So, some of what makes a filk song good and popular also applies to any song (catchy, singable/danceable/peppy), but some aspects are unique to filk (familiarity within a subculture) or at least more prominent in filk (clever lyrics, humorous). (Regarding humor, I don't have much to say except to echo what others have already said, especially vixyish's comments that a good song has humor "that doesn't get tired" and has "broad appeal.")

(I had another tangent, but I exceeded the word count in making this commnent, so you're all spared. :-)