In this article, I want to talk about naming your songs.
So what’s in a name? How important is it to the song itself? How unique or different should the name be? How long should it be? Should you stay away from controversial names? These are just a few of the many questions we could ask when coming up with a name for our song. Where would you like to begin?
Let me begin with how important the name is to the song itself because I think my views on this might not jive 100% with everybody else’s.
If you walk through the history of music, from the classics all the way to today’s rock, pop, dance or whatever, you’ll find a lot of different naming conventions. Some of them leave a lot to be desired as far as, well, as far as anything goes for that matter.
Take the early classics. Very few of them had names other than Symphony Number 7 In F Major or Sonata Number 3 In G Minor, or whatever. Sure, there were exceptions, like Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” but that piece of music only “got’ the name that it did when poet Ludwig Rellstab described the music as being “like moonlight shining on a lake” in 1832. The actual piece itself was written in 1827 and was titled “Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor Op. 27 No. 2. That’s the official title.
Who, other than classically knowledgeable people, knows this stuff? Do you think I know the “name” of every piano sonata ever written even by one composer? This kind of naming convention makes it a little difficult to separate the pieces.
So if you want to go by the classics of 200 to 300 years ago, a name really doesn’t matter all that much.
But what about today? What about popular music? Do you think a lot of these same songs that were huge hits and instantly recognizable would be so had they been given numbers? Imagine Billy Joel’s “Just The Way You Are” being titled “Song Number 58 by Billy Joel” or something like that.
My point is, the importance of a name of a song is heavily dependent on the context of when it was written and what kind of song it is. I’ve written one piano concerto and one symphony using the naming conventions of the classics. To me, it seemed proper to do it that way. Does it matter that they don’t have easily identifiable names? In this instance, I don’t believe it does.
But here is where I differ slightly. If you’re going to write 50 symphonies, I believe you better have some identifiable titles if you want them to be remembered. Otherwise, they’ll all blur together.
Anyway, so much for the importance of a name.
What about the uniqueness of a name? Well here too we have some major differences but also some similarities. In both classical and popular music, we have a lot of names that are the same as other songs. For example, know how many Sonata Number 1’s we have? I sure don’t, nor do I know how many are in the same key. In the rare instance where a name is given to a popular piece after it is written, like the “Moonlight Sonata” the name is usually pretty unique. How many Moonlight Sonatas do we have?
Yet, look at today’s music. Know how many songs are named “You And Me?” I found six. Know how many are named “Without You?” I found 18.
Forgetting classical music, because of its odd naming convention, lets look at popular music. For the most part, songs that stand out the most are the ones with unique names. Sure, there are always exceptions. But how many songs are names “To Sir With Love” or “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head?” If you want to have the best chance of having your song remembered, you’re probably best off coming up with a unique name. I try to do that whenever I write something, though it’s not easy when you’ve written thousands of songs.
What about the length of a name? This is kind of a double edged sword. A longer name may make it more unique but probably harder to remember depending on how long it is. So you want to balance length against familiarity. I find a 4 or 5 word title for a song is a good sweet spot. Of course if you can come up with a really catchy two word combination, you’ve struck gold.
Then of course there are controversial names. This is a touchy subject, though less so now than years ago. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Billboard Hot 100 from the last few years. I can’t believe we’ve actually reached a point where song titles have four letter words in them. I was stunned when I saw the title of CeeLo Green’s tune from 2010. You couldn’t get away with that stuff when I was a kid back in the 60s. But times have changed. Therefore, if you can come up with a controversial title and actually put some good music to it, you might have something. Certainly, in today’s day and age, controversy isn’t going to hurt you unless you really cross some kind of line. Apparently, saying “FU” in a song is nowhere near that line anymore.
In fairness, however, clean versions of that song were done for the “general” public and for being able to be performed on TV. So we haven’t completely lost our minds just yet. We’re getting there, but we still have a ways to go.
All in all, the name of your song really doesn’t matter if the song itself isn’t any good. Crappy music with a great title is still crappy music.
I think titles are important. I think we need something to identify with and giving our songs a good name, or at least an interesting one, will help the masses identify with our song. And when the smoke clears, isn’t that what we ultimately want?
For The Love Of Music,
Steven “Wags” Wagenheim