SSG Year 5 Week 15 - Closed Doors - with MP3

Chefie,

When was the last time you used "omnipresent" in a sentence...? I mean speaking out loud to other human beings. I see from your description that this verse was taken from a friend. One of my largest pet peeves in all of writing is the use of overly "important" words. There's something to be said about being comfortable with your own use of language.

This verse sticks out like a sore thumb next to your writing:

"Your absence, omnipresent
My sight obscured
Strength ebbs from muscles
No voices heard"

There are 5 multi-syllable words in that first verse and 5 more in the chorus. If you look through the rest of the song (the things that you contributed) there are only 7 different words with more than one syllable and none of them are such "high" language as "omnipresent". Basically it doesn't feel very "you" at the beginning and then your language just doesn't fit as the song progresses. All that... and that first verse essentially says nothing to me. You spend the rest of the song trying to catch up with that verse and it never really comes together.

I don't think that I'm alone in saying that songs really should move you and make you feel something. The first part of evoking an emotion in someone is to be understood by them. Your message will not get through if the listener is not comfortable with the language they're hearing. Country music is popular because its down on the level of the audience. Pop is the same way. The assignment was to write something that "sounds good and means something". In this case i feel that the language muddles the sound and obscures the meaning.

-marv

Hi Neil

Marv makes some good points but I am not totally convinced on all of his critisms and I am not about to get into a debate on this and that , he has his opinion and so does everyone else ..

I would have liked to hear more about the relationship its' self but with only so many verses with in a song I know how tough it is to place everything with in a song ..

I will comment on the points that stood out for me ,

The chorus is fantastic I love it ...

this verse

Where were you then
Where are you now
Where are the answers
what happened to our vows

excellent

These are just my opinions like everyone elses

Trevor

I don't find any of the multisyllabic words to be distracting, but then I'm a person who actually uses words like omnipresent in conversation. :lol: I really like the lyrics overall.

Different genres of music use different vocabularies. This song isn't in either the country or pop categories, IMO.

As I listened to the song, I could especially picture it as an intimate number in a theatrical play.

Margaret

Hi Chefie,
This is an interesting point:
Your message will not get through if the listener is not comfortable with the language they're hearing.
There is an element truth there but its not absolute IMO.
Making people feel a little uncomfortable is an artists right. Of course sometimes there is a price to pay, the listener may dismiss your song outright, especially if they don't understand it.
I agree with MO about that verse, the language is different, and understandably because it was written by someone else, but personally, I like it. If it was me Id be looking to put a few more big words in to the other verses there to keep the style of the original verse. I think you have made a pretty good attempt at being consistent with the meaning, but for me the mismatch in style is apparent, and needs to be addressed.
Neil it's a pretty tall ask to write in the style of someone else, I think you've done well.

Cheers

Paul

OK I've listened to the song and read all the comments ( after hearng the song)

In my opinion , I would leave the first verse out altogether and start with the chorus, the lyrics for the rest of it are pretty good.
I got lost listening to them and had to start again !!!!

Go well
Ja'mir

I listened to this before I read it (note to self, do that more often whenever possible) and I'd like to take Marv's point a step further.

The vocabulary didn't faze me in the least but it did make me think there were two distinct writers or at least voices at work here. That's not necessarily a bad thing either, but can lead to some confusion.

The chorus is very strong, and I think its strength lies in the choices of words. "Illumination eludes" is both smart and alliterative and the following lines all follow wonderfully in this vein of opposites. It's like a thinking person's Hello Goodbye.

In contrast, the other verses seem a bit of a letdown. It's not that they aren't good in and of themselves, but rather that they belong to another song. Or at least a different narrator.

While I agree with Marv that "omnipresent" might be a little overkill, I think that you could tweak the verses to bring them in line with the feel and power of the chorus. Perhaps something like this in the first verse:

Your absence lingers everywhere
All my vision obscured
Thoughts melt away in boredom
Conversations become blurred

Just a thought...

(another note to self: "omnipresent would set this up nicely if it were about a relationship with God and make the song very interesting in a very different way. The chorus could easily stay put but there'd be a lot more verse tweaking to get the mix right. Just a wild thought...)

Musically, this is one of the finest things I've heard you done, Neil. I love the guitar work (and it will get better with confidence!) - it's emotional and sparse at the same time. You've got a great mix of strumming and picking and your style is getting more interesting all the time.

Keep at this one!

Looking forward to much more.

Peace

I really like the contrast between absence and omnipresence. They are opposites, yet can and do coexist, making this line, to me, profound:

"Your absence, omnipresent"

If the word omnipresent is bothersome, it could be changed to:

"Your absence, ever present" without changing the beats and keeping virtually the same contrast. Just an idea.

Margaret

Wow! This is amazing! Here I thought I had a fairly simple, straight forward song and it's managed to illicit perhaps a little controversy. This is great! Really, everyone, lots of good ideas and food for thought. Thanks! I'll need to let them settle in before I can see what direction the rewrite will take. Thanks all for your contributions. They will, undoubtably, all help.

Neil

I really like the contrast between absence and omnipresence. They are opposites, yet can can and do coexist...

<nit-picky-language-warning>

"absence" and "omnipresence" are not opposites. Omnipresence means to be present everywhere. absence simply means "not here" (but possibly, somewhere else). To have an opposite for omnipresence you'd have to have a word that means "does not exist anywhere" Something like "null", "void", "vacuum" come closer, but still don't fit the bill.
My gripe with "omnipresence" isn't so much that it's high language, but that it's used inaccurately.

</nit-picky-language-warning>

Margaret,

I think your suggestion -- "Your absence, ever present" is a real good re-write for that line. I was going to suggest it myself, then noticed you already had. It's simple, clear, and it sets up that contrast you mentioned.

Chefie,
Generally speaking, I agree with Marv that it's better to "write like you talk". The exception to that is if you have daughters who constantly say things like :
Dad, why can't you just talk normal?
Then, you might have to study how they talk, and write like that. The key is, you want your ideas to be accessible to your audience. I think that's what Marv was driving at as well. At least that's how I read it.

Scratchmonkey wrote.....

"Chefie,
Generally speaking, I agree with Marv that it's better to "write like you talk". The exception to that is if you have daughters who constantly say things like :

My Daughters wrote:
Dad, why can't you just talk normal?

Then, you might have to study how they talk, and write like that. The key is, you want your ideas to be accessible to your audience. I think that's what Marv was driving at as well. At least that's how I read it."

Very good point.....but hey, I like the MP3, everything seems to gel there.....it does read like two different people wrote two different songs and someone's kept the best bits.....

Having said that, I also agree that "omnipresent" is a word that should only be used in a Religious conversation - but I like the fixes suggested for that.

Overall, nice music, good song - but that one word's going to grate on a few nerves.......

:D :D :D

Vic

Wow! This is amazing! Here I thought I had a fairly simple, straight forward song and it's managed to illicit perhaps a little controversy. This is great! Really, everyone, lots of good ideas and food for thought. Thanks! I'll need to let them settle in before I can see what direction the rewrite will take. Thanks all for your contributions. They will, undoubtably, all help.

Neil

ummm - that should be "elicit" not "illicit" - but now I'm being nitpicky....but elicit means "to draw out" and illicit means the same as illegal - which leads me to an old joke.......

What's the difference between illicit and illegal? One means against the law, the other's a sick bird.....

(Sorry for that......)

:D :D :D

Vic

I didn't have a problem with the lyrics. And somehow it all seemed to work fine together because by the end--or maybe somewhere in the middle I found myself lost--not lost because I couldn't understand--but because something about the music or lyrics or both touched me. If anyone has a problem with the word "omnipresent" you could always switch to "ever present" or "always present" but I didn't notice anything wrong with it until I read the comments. I say, go with what feels right. And hey, the fact that you made birds sick--or something--says a lot. Well done.

Joe