Ron Sexsmith on why he has a "no co-writing" rule for all his albums

[Reid Rosefelt]

I used to know Ron Sexsmith a little bit. This is how it happened. An actor friend of mine used to invite me to her place in the Catskills each year for a few days around New Year's. I earned my way by doing chores and bringing my guitar and singing. One year, she told me that Ron was going to be coming. I wasn't familiar with his work, so I started listening, and liked what I was hearing so much that I listened to everything. I was overwhelmed by his talent as a songwriter and singer, which made me extremely anxious about going up there. I practiced for days. He turned out to be the sweetest, most humble guy and a huge Dylan fan like me (he toured with him once, but never met him), so we played a lot of those old songs together. I'm not friendly with the actor anymore, so I doubt I'll ever see Ron or his wife Colleen again.

I did go to one of his concerts once, and I discovered that people who like Ron Sexsmith like him a LOT.


Ron and me (ex-actor friend blurred out)

Today I saw something he wrote on Facebook, and I thought it might be fuel for discussion here.

Some of you may have heard that I have a “no co-writing” rule for all my albums and it’s true! The only time I broke this rule was when I included the song “Brandy Alexander” on my “Exit Strategy Of The Soul” album. I wrote the song long distance with Leslie Feist, which she then recorded for her “Reminder” LP. I LOVED her version but it was SO different from how I heard it going that I decided to make my own attempt. For what it’s worth, it’s been a point of pride that on the back of each record it’ll say “All songs written by Ronald Eldon Sexsmith”. Mostly because that’s what all my heroes did (Joni, Dylan, Randy Newman, Lightfoot, Ray Davies, Laura Nyro etc, etc). Just knowing that the thoughts and melodies contained on some of my fave albums came undiluted meant the world to me. There are also many fantastic songwriting teams who I love (where one writes the music and the other writes the words) so we still get two undiluted portions coming together to make a memorable song. I’m not saying that great songs don’t come from cowrites (they do) but I’ve always felt it was a bit like…cheating, for lack of a better word. I know Leonard Cohen cowrote a lot in his later years, but you always knew at least, that the lyrics were 100% his. So did Warren Zevon (another favourite of mine). He cowrote some wonderful songs with various writers and novelists. Even so, I much prefer the ones he wrote by himself.

Nowadays you have songs written by committees which I’m not a fan of at all. The only thing I’ve ever cared about in music is songwriter’s and songwriting. I love structure, melodies, bridges, intros and outros, and key changes too. I love internal rhyming schemes and second verses that sing as well as the first. I love writers who have a distinct point of view and a sense of humour. Writers who give you something you can’t get from anybody else. It’s such a personal thing or at least I feel it should be. Now, some people might say: “It’s not about how a song is written, it’s about the end result." You can believe that all you want, but in my humble opinion, they are wrong.

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

Another story. He's written countless great songs, but if I had to pick a favorite, it would be "Strawberry Blonde." He told me it took a long time to write. When I asked him why, he said "because it was so sad." When I listened to it later I realized that Ron really doesn't write hopeless songs, so he found an ingenious way to turn it around in the last verse. And it's the bittersweet beauty of that last verse that's probably why I love that song so much.

 

[Nekujak]

This is an interesting topic to explore, thanks for bringing it up.

I think it's a revealing indicator that only one person responded when I started a thread a while back asking folks to identify songwriter(s) they'd most want to collaborate with. I think this is because we songwriters view ourselves as artists with strong creative visions, who have something personal to express with our music and lyrics. So there's no compelling reason to collaborate with anyone.

If I'm just writing for myself, I can take my time, ponder the lyrics, massage the melody, tweak chords, etc. until my heart's content. It would never occur to me to bring in a collaborator because I simply enjoy the process of digging deep and coming up with something that expresses my own thoughts and emotions. It's very personal and intimate.

But when I'm tasked with writing a song on a short deadline, in a specific style, about a specific subject, then I eagerly welcome the collaboration of experienced songwriters and/or lyricists. Because for the most part, good collaborators are an accelerant that not only speed up the songwriting process, but also exponentially increase the chances of getting a great result.

This is one of the reasons we see so many pop songs nowadays with 5 or more writers on the credits. There's simply too much at stake to put it all on the shoulders of just one person. Throwing additional songwriting talent on the project hopefully increases the chances of scoring a hit.

There's also another factor. Nowadays in pop music, producers and producer teams are an integral part of the song creation process, from sound design to beat making to mixing, their contributions are a valued component, so even if they didn't actually write the core song, they often receive writing credit.

And of course, in highly exploitative situations, managers and other business folks insist on getting points on a song. Going back several decades, this used to be a rampant practice. Also, in some big established bands, primary band members are automatically added as writers regardless of who in the band came up with a song.

Anyway... I believe there needs to be a compelling reason to collaborate, otherwise why bother? Painters, sculptors, authors, and other artists seldom, if ever, collaborate on works, so why would songwriters? There needs to be some added value or purpose to the collaboration. It might be something as simple as two friends who share a creative vision and enjoy working together, or something more mercenary and goal-oriented, like crafting the next smash hit.

Being a solitary songwriter for most of my life, I never appreciated the benefits or got the appeal of collaborating. But once I had the opportunity to collaborate (on commercial projects), I found the process to be quite enjoyable. It's an incredible relief to have someone else come up with a lyric, or solve a problem with the melody, or suggest a better way of expressing a line, etc. The process of bouncing ideas off one another can be a fun creative experience, assuming everyone's able to get their ego out of the way and stay focused on the common goal.

And that brings up perhaps the most important point: having good chemistry with your co-writers. Everyone has their own working style, and even more importantly, working speed. I think it's essential to find writing partners who are compatible with your pace, with whom you can establish a rapport, and where everyone feels mutually respected. Without this, the experience can be quite unpleasant and unfulfilling.

So to sum it all up... I don't believe songwriting collaboration is ever necessary, unless both you and the song can clearly benefit from it. But I do believe everyone should try it at least once, just to have the experience

 

[BDT]

I like Ron's quote, but for other reasons.
Whenever I've worked with other musicians (mostly singers, but also instrumentalists),
that unpleasant thing called "ego" often got in the way.

For me, it's always about the song.
The song determines what's in the final product.
If that means tracks have to be removed (even my own), then they get removed.

As an independent artist, I've also learned to hate being dependent on singer divas
who may or may not show up for the gig.

So I learned to do everything myself, and I've become decent at most things.
Most instruments (including singers) can be emulated with software these days.
You no longer need an expensive recording studio.
I'm also not ashamed to use AI singers to sing my lyrics if Synth V isn't up to the task.

However, I try to avoid instrumental AI tracks.
But if I really can't do what the song needs myself, and as long as I'm able to
dictate the melody and chord progression, I use AI from time to time.

Here you have it.
I'm a whore in the service of my songs.
Kill me

 

[David Cuny]

I'm a hobbyist, so my motivation is different than a professional. Sometimes, a song is just a puzzle to be solved, and other times, it's a very personal story that I want communicate.

Since I'm trying to reach an audience, I'll translate ideas into something that can fit into a song. I'll simplify and use stereotypes, trying to pare down to the essentials.

To some degree, I think that's a mistake. People like idiosyncratic stories, and unique voices.

On the rare occasion where I work with someone else, or ask for input, I find that waters down whatever personal voice I had even further. It communicates better to a wide group of people, but doesn't resonate as much with me personally.

That's not really a bad thing, because that's the point of writing. The focus is what's best for the song. Perhaps there's a problem with a line that a rewrite improves. They're right, but the song becomes even less of me than it was before.

So those songs - even though I'm the primary author - don't really feel like my own work. I'm still proud of the work, and it doesn't mean I worked even less. But it's a compromise, and I look at lines and hear what's no longer there.

When I struggle for lyrics, it's a combination of logic and feeling - storytelling and constraints. Something that comes from memory has strong feeling associated with it, even if on paper it's a cliche.

But since I'm not that good of a songwriter, a bit of ego-puncturing is a good thing.

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

I've thought about this since I was twelve. Even when I was in a band with other songwriters, I've never done it. I've always written about something I felt strongly about or events that just happened (a girlfrend leaving me, etc.) and I didn't know how anybody else could tune in to the emotion that motivated writing the song.

The thought of compromising is unthinkable to me. I spent my life in the movie business. There was always people in power pissing on every idea I had, to control it or to say it was their idea. But I always wrote songs at home--that was the one thing that was just for me. So now that I'm retired, I'm really not looking for collaborators. I'm very fussy about each word and each note. I've spent over two months on the song I'm currently working on. There's still one line in a lyric I don't like. I've written a few dozen versions of it and I'm still not happy. When I finally accept a lyric, I really couldn't care less if somebody hears it once and says it's a crap lyric. It's the same for the structure and the melody. I'm always looking for ways to make them better. I wish I could plot it out perfectly from the beginning, and sometimes I'm able to, but usually I have to spend weeks going down blind alleys before I can eliminate them, and find the final shape. The end result is a product of me rejecting so many other possibilities until I like it. It's lonely going through this process, but I'm not interested in doing it any other way. Because then it wouldn't be my song anymore.

I'm not a pro and I can do what I want.

I've since learned there are many different ways people collaborate on songs. Some duos are the old-fashioned way that I was familiar with, like @Nekujak and Ron Sexsmith. You have two songwriters, like Lennon and McCartney or Jagger and Richards. Sometimes one person writes the music and the other writes lyrics, like Elton John and Bernie Taupin. Sometimes there are assigned roles of music and lyrics, like Gerry Goffin (lyrics) and Carole King (music), but the roles blur on various songs.

But then, I found about these more open collaborations.

First, there's the Nashville tradition of The Room, where a group of (usually two or three) people gather in a room with their various skills and write a song together. The contributions are fluid and there is only one rule--if you're in the room, you get song credit. In the old days, if you were lucky enough to score a huge hit with a star, you could buy a house. Those days are gone.

I have a friend who worked for many years in LA as a professional songwriter. He would spend a day in a studio with 3-4 other people--usually a producer, and some other music people (sometimes a star) and at the end of the day, they'd have a new song. He had a song that charted in Korea--when he told me what he got after splitting it with the other writers, I was shocked by how low his payout was. I read an article about Amy Rose Allen, who co-wrote "Espresso" and other hits with Sabrina Carpenter. She also collaborated with Dua Lipa, Harry Styles, Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez, Halsey, Shawn Mendes, etc. And she said something like, "Okay I had this huge hit, but before that, I wrote hundreds of songs that didn't go anywhere."

And then there's another thing that's very common, which is that producers write a finished track with no lyrics--in fact, often they have no ideas at all for lyrics. And they invite "topliners" to come in and sing over their track. And these freelance singers, usually women, come in and improvise lyrics. And if there's no song that comes out of the session, they keep hiring more topliners. My friend the LA songwriter told me that he and other songwriters didn't like the term "topliners," as they considered themselves songwriters.

Of course there are lots of contemporary pop artists who continue to write alone or collaborate in more traditional ways.

In short, everything about what real pros do to collaborate on songs in Nashville and LA reminds me of the compromises I made working in the film business in New York.

 

[Tim Nash]

I get more done on my own. No waiting for someone else to do what I can do myself. Too many times I was disappointed by what others thought were good ideas. I used to write with others but over time I learned to do it all myself. I really enjoy the time on my own creating whatever I feel like at any given moment and then recording it right away. I discovered that I think differently than most musicians. That's good for my creativity but not necessarily good for collaborating with others that don't feel music in the same way.

 

[Reid Rosefelt]

After I wrote what I wrote above, I started thinking about how I might have learned a lot from collaboration. What if I had meet somebody when I was young who was sympatico and good to work with?

I think of Taylor Swift getting her parents to move her to Nashville as a teen. She had stories she wanted to tell about being young, she had great melodies, but that wouldn't necessarily have taken her very far. In Nashville, she paired up with experienced songwriters. who taught her the craft of songwriting. She's benefited from that her whole life and stuck with the idea of learning from others through collaboration. She knows she has skills, but she admires other songwriters and wants variety.

I know I have terrible craft. It takes me forever to write songs because I don't know what I'm doing. I just have to keep trying and trying and trying until the song finally reaches its final shape. The only thing I have (I hope) is high standards--I know when songs are finally done. By that I mean I can hear the songs hundreds of times and still love them. Before that it is painful to hear them even once. The things that aren't working are just "ouch!"

It sure would be better if I could plan my songs out at the beginning. That's what a pro can do. I can't. I have to make mistakes and fix them. I only know what the song is after I spend a lot of time exploring the things that become mistakes. I learn the song is better if those sections aren't there. But only after I hear them a lot.

And these people who somehow are able to bang out a song every day must definitely learn something from that, although that something might not result in the kinds of songs I want to write.

 

[Louie]

I think I’m naturally much more of a collaborator than a solo writer. I remember way back how much fun it was to co-write music in original bands. But the problem was the bands never lasted. I remember how much work we would put into writing the material, rehearsing, scraping gigs together, and then poof, a key member would inevitably drop out right when things seemed to be happening. I burnt out on that scene and pivoted to freelance jazz for a long time while slowly working on my own music at home. Eventually my own music became more interesting to me than the freelancing so that is where I wound up by default, and I can’t see myself going back.

 

[Nekujak]

If you believe in your creative vision and have something deeply personal to express, there's no compelling reason to collaborate, in fact, collaboration may actually be counterproductive. Making art is an intensely personal journey, and it's no surprise the vast majority of artists, of all types, walk their own paths alone.

That said, it's not unusual to have songwriting collaborations, and I believe a key reason for that is, unlike other types of art, songs can easily be broken down into clearly identifiable and independent structural components.

Music and lyrics are the most obvious, but each of those can be broken down even further. For example, one person could come up with a song structure and chord progression, another could come up with a melody, someone could come up with an instrumental hook or riff, someone else could come up with verse lyrics, and someone else could write the chorus, etc.. The combinations and permutations are endless.

All of these independent components end up fitting together like a puzzle to form a finished song. This is a unique attribute specific to songwriting.

If you think about an author writing a novel, s/he's responsible for the entire book. There aren't different people writing individual chapters or paragraphs. Painters don't have one person paint the sky, another person paint the landscape, and another paint trees - one person is responsible for the entire painting. This is how it is with most art.

I'm not saying other art forms can't have collaboration - I'm sure there are many ways in which other artists collaborate, especially on large projects or installations. What I am saying is that songs have very identifiable, discrete architectural components that enable different collaborators to make very specific and specialized contributions.

And this my friends, is what can let us retain our artistic vision while still reaping the benefits of collaboration. For example...

Let's say I've written a song - chords, lyrics, and melody. But it feels kind of pedestrian to me and stylistically similar to stuff I've written before. I can spend days and weeks trying to make it more "interesting", but I'll still be drawing from my same old pool of musical knowledge and relying on my same old musical instincts.

But what if instead, I bring it to my jazz-playing friend and ask him to reharmonize it with some cool jazzy chords and voicings. I still retain my lyrics, my melody, and my artistic vision... but his input suddenly makes my song sound a thousand times more interesting, plus as an added bonus, he made a couple of great suggestions for the bridge that I'll consider.

And there you have it - a controlled and contained collaboration, limited to just the specific components I wanted help with.

As @Reid Rosefelt 's previous examples indicated, songwriting collaborations can take many forms. Collaboration doesn't automatically mean you must compromise or give up creative control. Sometimes just getting some focused input is all it takes to transform a good song into a great one!

 

[Louie]

If you think about an author writing a novel, s/he's responsible for the entire book. There aren't different people writing individual chapters or paragraphs. Painters don't have one person paint the sky, another person paint the landscape, and another paint trees - one person is responsible for the entire painting. This is how it is with most art.

This is a good point and generally true I think.

If you believe in your creative vision and have something deeply personal to express, there's no compelling reason to collaborate, in fact, collaboration may actually be counterproductive. Making art is an intensely personal journey, and it's no surprise the vast majority of artists, of all types, walk their own paths alone.

Yes, and nobody else is going to get inside my head and write my music for me.

Music and lyrics are the most obvious, but each of those can be broken down even further. For example, one person could come up with a song structure and chord progression, another could come up with a melody, someone could come up with an instrumental hook or riff, someone else could come up with verse lyrics, and someone else could write the chorus, etc.. The combinations and permutations are endless.

In one band I was in, we had two lyric writers, one vocalist, three drummer/percussionists, two bass players, three guitarists, one keyboardist--but only 5 people! How did that work?

The lyric writers would bring their lyrics to the band. Then, based on the reception of the group, the lyric writers would choose what songs of theirs to work on, and the band would come up with the music during band practices. Sometimes the lyric writers would bring only lyrics, sometimes a partial song, and rarely, a completed song.* The lyrics would spark ideas for the music and we generally were responsible for coming up with the parts on our “main” instrument, but it wasn’t unusual for us to switch off on other instruments when writing the songs (but not when practicing and later performing them). What made it so much fun was the writing process itself with everyone in the same room, bounding ideas off one another, and it was often surprising how we would even anticipate each other, but at the same time never really know how the final song would materialize, so the music was always fresh. We all had mutual respect for one another's talents and helped each other out in our weak areas, and took criticism well, so the ego problems that plague many bands wasn’t an issue. One key thing (that often goes without saying in these kinds of bands) is an understanding that everyone gets equal writing credit on every song. The exception being the lyrics of course. Which brings up a good point—I don’t recall the two lyric writers ever collaborating on the writing of their lyrics. That portion of the creativity would be something they would do independently.

Songwriters/composers that aren’t really lyric writers don’t have much choice except to collaborate with a lyric writer, or another songwriter, if they want to write popular music. So perhaps that is another significant reason why so many songwriters work on their own. I think if they collaborate with a lyrics only writer or a poet, that could be perhaps be a more reliable creative partnership for longevity. Because, both parties truly need one another.

*Almost forgot to mention: Sometimes one of the lyric writers/vocalist would get an idea for lyrics just from the band jamming at rehearsal. Then go home with a recording of the jam, and bring lyrics back. Then the band would work from that rough jam recording and the lyrics to make the finished song.

 

[Nekujak]

In one band I was in, we had two lyric writers, one vocalist, three drummer/percussionists, two bass players, three guitarists, one keyboardist--but only 5 people! How did that work?

This brings up another important consideration when it comes to collaborative songwriting... and that is the difference between a band versus a singer-songwriter.

In a band setting, it's very common indeed to have multiple band members contribute to the songwriting effort. When I played in a heavy metal band as a teen, I was happy to leave all of the lyric writing and most of the melody writing to our lead singer, while the bass player and I handled the musical side of things, with the drummer occasionally chiming in, as well. And like you say, it was great fun collaborating in that group setting, and very often new songs grew out of unbridled jam sessions.

For singer-songwriters, it's a different story, I think. With a solo performer, or a performer with a small backup band, the music usually represents just the one voice. That's not to say singer-songwriters never collaborate, but I think it's mostly their creative vision that's represented by the music, so collaboration is less common.

 

[Louie]

For singer-songwriters, it's a different story, I think. With a solo performer, or a performer with a small backup band, the music usually represents just the one voice. That's not to say singer-songwriters never collaborate, but I think it's mostly their creative vision that's represented by the music, so collaboration is less common.

Or take a Billie Eilish, which I guess is a two person vision with her brother Finneas. A family connection in this case, which is part of the glue that holds it together I’d venture to say.

My hunch is if someone did an in-depth study today, indeed, the non-corporate singer-songwriters would mostly be solo acts, perhaps with some help with the production outside of the purely songwriting domain. The exceptions being 2 person teams where there is a family connection, a marriage (in your own case from reading), or a strong childhood friendship as part of the glue that binds the musical relationship.

So my half assed thesis, is (just in general), that it is in the best interest of a solo artist to stay solo unless would-be collaborators have very strong bonds and trust outside the purely musical relationship. I think this is true because of the amount of trust and mutual time and energy involved.

Of course we have the writing teams in Nashville, and/or hiring studio cats for performing parts, but I’m not counting those as that is more a division of labor product (again in general).

I’m also thinking of Norah Jones earlier on, where Jesse Harris (and others) wrote some of the songs, maybe is an in-between case. Not soley her own vision from a songwriting perspective, but not really corporate either.