Does a musicians ability to compose/write their own music affect your willingness to listen to them?

I tend to like artists who compose their own music. Hearing a songwriter sing their own words...moves me. I'm thinking of Bob Dylan singing, oh, Every Grain of Sand. He is living it and it feels "real" to me.

Now I also love to hear an artist like Brian Ferry take Dylan's Hard Rain someplace new and exciting.

So...its all good. And great art comes in every size and shape. Love it all, I say.

 

Nope.

 

With me it does.
I write and record music myself and play all of the instruments, so I have a rather tainted viewpoint.
But I think far too often music is released with the wrong name at the top of the album.
Quite often what makes musicians or bands popular is support musicians or producers.
Take Bob Ezrin for example. The Alice Cooper band would have never been popular had not Bob Ezrin stepped in.
And, I consider The Wall to be a Bob Ezrin album more than a Pink Floyd album.
Also consider all of the Motown stuff that was recorded with acts that were just singers, but had amazing music behind them, and think about how many of those songs wouldn't have gotten off the ground if not for the creative musicianship and production.
Where would Rick Nelson have been without James Burton, or Buck Owens without Don Rich?
And, imagine a Michael Jackson album without the musicians and production/arrangements? That is one guy that got a LOT of credit for work that was largely done by others.
Guys like Smokey Robinson can never be credited enough for the real roles they have played in music.

Ever heard of Dennis Coffey? Probably not, but you certainly have heard his guitar work if you ever listen to soul music.
He is the guy that introduced the Echoplex and Wah pedal to Motown.

So, I tend to draw the line at listening to bands who are their own songwriters and musicians or guys like Alan Parsons or Steve Wilson who are entirely in control of what gets recorded and who plays on it.
I particularly have no interest in music that has no credits in the liner notes to the musicians.

 

NO.

Ridiculous notion.

 

And I suppose a singer who can't play an instrument (besides a tambourine) is useless as well? After all, the voice isn't an instrument. Give me a break, some musicians can write and some can't. I'm interested in how well a musician plays or how a singer sings, not in one's songwriting capabilities...that's just icing on the cake.

 

If I love the song I do not care who wrote it...for me it's all about the melody that grabs my soul.

 

If an artist does not write their own music, and I'm interested in getting some of their recordings, I usually start with a hits compilation whereas with artists who do compose their songs, I usually don't want to touch compilations but choose one of the albums as a starter.

 

No.
It matters not one iota.

 

Some musicians are first and foremost performers, some are writers, a select few act in both capacities. I see these two roles so fundamentally different to each other that it's rather hard for me to recognize the point in the question presented in the title of this thread. Of course, I do understand the value of creative output, but on the other hand I also appreciate a first-rate performance. To me personally Bob Dylan is a prime example of the inherent dichotomy here; I usually enjoy his songs very much when I hear them performed by other artists, but I have great difficulties in listening to the man himself as much as his songwriting skills might warrant. I'm perfectly willing to listen to Dylan the songwriter, but a lot more reluctant in listening to Dylan the performer.

 

A good question !
I never ask first, whether an artist or a band writes their own stuff. The only question is, whether it goes to my heart.

But then - when I look at my record collection it has mainly artists and bands, who write their own stuff.

So obviously the "ability to compose/write their own music" must have an effect on me although it's not intended.

My theory is, that music transports more than just sound and melody, there is also a lot of personality involved and maybe a recording has more "personality", when writer and performer are one.

 

My motto is just don't record too many Paul Anka or Mac Davis songs and you're all right with me.

 

No, and it shouldn't. The process of making music coming to life is not dependent on the ability to write music. I listen to a lot of classical, jazz and folk/country music, musics where the job of "writing the tune" is usually left up to someone else and the job of the performer is to bring that music to life. That process will always include the personal inflection or variation—Sinatra leaps to mind. With "classical" music there is often room for improvisation, particularly in Baroque music with all its ornamentation. "Wildwood Flower" comes in many different versions, even from Mother Maybelle Carter herself. The notion that today's music is somehow inferior because not everybody in pop music writes their own material is very foolish and ignorant of musical history. Cole Porter is not known for his performances of his music. Cole Porter became what he is because he left the art of making his music come alive to those more qualified than he was.

 

Who cares who wrote it beside the writer.

 

His/her accountant?
His/her bank manager?
His/her other half?

 

And excluding classical music, older jazz music and rock 'n' roll, where it's virtually a given in most cases that the artist won't perform their own material, I'm not ashamed to admit that 99% (which may even be a conversative estimate) of my collection is from musicians who composed and performed their music - your assertion/implication that that makes me somehow less interested in music than those who listen to mostly cover artists is more than a little condescending.

As a composer myself , I'm not going to learn as much from listening to songs that have by and large been done countless times before than I am from listening to music that I know came from and were the heart and soul from the performers and thus just have more resonance that from those that are at best highly skilled interpreters (singers like Elvis and Sinatra were exceptions, because they used their vocal chords like music instruments with such a degree of creative and imaginative freedom and personal emotion to the extent that they sound like they could have written the songs themselves). Granted, I don't attach so much importance to the art of original composition as I used to after having in recent years gotten into hip hop, which is well known (and often disparaged) for sampling other artists, but even there, in the best hip hop the samples are carefully chosen, mixed and arranged, combining and with supporting the beats and rappers' lyrics in such a way that it makes it as much a legimate from of composition as the rock, metal, R&B etc artists who mostly created every note from scratch.

 

...and that's why he plays theaters when Clapton and Page can fill arenas, even though Beck is arguably the better guitarist.

 

It doesn't help that he doesn't sing (listen to Hi-Ho Silver Lining for proof) and couldn't get along with Rod. If he'd kept the original Jeff Beck Group lineup together longer, instead of jumping into instrumental jazz-rock fusion, he'd have a bigger audience.

I doubt Page could fill an arena these days without the cooperation of Mr. Plant (and visa-versa).

 

In Rock The song is nothing without the performance!! just hear that lame Sleepy Mattress commercial where some lame singer ruins one of the Old time Beatle classics "In My Life"

 

No. It is the quality of the finished product. I am not sure but most of the hit music before the 60's were covers.

Besides most writers are at best mediocre, IMHO. Excellence in anything is rare.

 

Yes. If they don't write anything on their own stuff, they are an interpreter.

 

Playing mostly instrumentals has more to do with filling seats than the amount of writing credits. In reality, Beck does just as much composing by working out those solos, as Clapton or Page.

 

Most artists I listen to write their own music. Those that don't are the ones who can really add something new to somebody else's material (Joe Cocker, Jennifer Warnes, Linda Ronstadt, Eva Cassidy, Chet Baker).

 

yea... i respect people that write their own stuff more.
doesn't mean i dont enjoy covers though..

 

Yes.