by Peter Berryman
I just received an interesting e-mail from friend, folk music fan and great question-asker and answer-listener Eitan Grunwald of Roosevelt, NJ, whom my musical partner Lou and I met along with his wife Karyn at the Champlain Valley Folk Festival in Burlington VT last year. Eitan has made two observations and a number of subpoints regarding a singing/songwriter he saw lately, and he asked for my opinion on his thoughts, from a performer's point of view. Well, if Eitan's a good questioner, I'm a nonstop opinionator. With his kind permission, I'm using his observations as the basis for this episode of Whither Zither (Eitan's points are paraphrased in italics. Where I've quoted him, I've used quotation marks).
1. BETTER IN PERSON
Eitan feels that the performer is "better in person" than on their CDs, "...since the studio recordings just don't capture the humorous patter, the effective set-ups, and the engaging stage presence."
Lou and I are very familiar with this problem, as our own recordings, particularly the earlier ones, suffer from it. Though it's better to have it that way than for people to come up after a gig and say, "Gee, your recordings are a lot better than your live show," it's a continuing challenge to try and bring the spirit of a live gig into the studio. Not only is a live ambience more exciting for a listener, but the performance is almost always better. Music is after all about communication, and if there's nobody there but Mr. Microphone, a singer can't help but feel kinda silly. Recording a live show does help, but still, it's never the same listening to a folk CD in your Yugo as being right there in the folding chair.
2. LIVE SONGLIST BETTER THAN CD
Eitan's second point is that whereas artists regale their audiences with only their best original songs onstage, on their CDs they often intersperse good songs with original material of lesser quality. He wonders why this is so, and why songwriters do it instead of putting a few strong "covers" (songs written by contemporaries), or maybe good traditional songs, in between their own strong compositions instead. He suggests a few possible reasons:
---Is it personal taste?
Eitan wonders if the songs he considers weak only seem weak to him, and might seem great to someone else, and that being aware of this phenomenon, "...the performer just puts it out there for the audience to decide."
Personal taste may be the most mysterious lump in the stew. Sometimes writers will have songs that turn out to be appropriate for the Bob's Bait and Small Engine Fisheree, and other songs ideal for folk society concerts. Sprinkled together on the same CD, half of them will appeal to audiences from the bait world, and the other half to the folkies. Everyone will like half the CD, even if it's not the same half. Of course, the downside is that everyone will consider the other half of the CD weak.
Also, in this wee end of the biz, songwriters don't seem so driven by business considerations that they can't make a few whimsical decisions, and might include an iffy song simply because it appeals to their own personal taste.
---Is it performer ego?
Eitan suggests that maybe the performer is blind to the weaknesses of their material, and assumes everything they do is great.
Though I think this is rare in the folky world, I agree that it describes one or two songsters out there, and unless they are Bob Dylan, it means trouble. The equally fatal flip side of this is the songwriter who doesn't think a song is any good, but puts it on the CD in the hope that someone else will.
In all fairness, it's not easy to detach from one's own work
enough to hear it as others might. Being ignorant of the weaknesses
of your own stuff might not be as much an ego problem as a problem
of perspective. But either way, it's a problem.
--Is it to build a reputation as a songwriter?
Maybe the artist wants to be known primarily as a songwriter, and not as a performer of covers.
As one who has only recorded one cover in twelve albums, I
think a fascination with writing can become an addiction, and
that in itself is enough to discourage spending time on covers.
However, in the sense that it would be self-defeating to become
known for doing something one isn't interested in doing, I would
agree that "reputation" can figure into the decision
to record only originals, for someone interested in a songwriting
career.
--Is it economics?
Eitan asks if songwriters are hesitant to record covers because they necessitate the paying of royalties, making it more expensive and complicated than recording originals.
My guess is that this usually isn't a big reason. Maybe I'm wrong, but the amount of money involved is so relatively scant -- about 7 cents per CD per song -- that I doubt it's often an issue.
Two final observations: First, singing a great song written by someone else doesn't automatically make a songwriter's CD a better CD. A botched job of interpreting a cover can be more dismal than a good job of interpreting an original though possibly weak song.
And secondly, on a songwriter's live show being better than their original CD: When performers are picking songs for a gig, they have their entire collection of songs before them, written since day one. When picking original songs for a new CD, they only have those written since the last CD to choose from. It would be a miracle if the quality of every song on the new CD stood up to every song in what is essentially a "greatest hits" live set.
I thank Eitan Grunwald profusely for being the brains behind this Whither Zither and apologize if I misrepresented any of his points. This was all very timely for me, as Lou and I recently made the decision to postpone our next CD because of the large number of unproven songs we had ready for it. Thinking all this through has helped me feel more confident in our decision, though now I believe maybe we should throw Yankee Doodle and Nola into the lineup and get on with it.