M57

Buy a Mac. 🤣 But seriously.. What do you want to do? Record just yourself? ..yourself and others? Are you looking for synth-heavy, drop in the beat-centric composing, or are you a 100% homegrown acoustic purist? What is your workflow like, or what do you think it will be like? Read up on the differences. Take a look at screen-shots and watch you-tube videos of them in action. OR just get a Mac and go with Logic and never look back. (that's my recommendation and I have no biases

Just so that people aren't confused - Musescore is pretty much strictly notation software, and not a DAW at all. I have colleagues who are music educators that use it, but Finale and Sibelius are still the industry standards. No doubt MuseScore is a lot cheaper. F & S are pro, which means powerful and detail oriented - so you can imagine the learning curve is significant. Also the big two are obscenely expensive plus you can say goodbye to an extra $100+ every year if you want to keep it updated so that you can work with others who have theirs updated because they update theirs so they can work with ... 😖..you get the picture. For anyone who is interested in getting into entry level notation software, another option they should probably also look into is Noteflight. The advantage of NF is that's it's cloud based and runs on your browser anywhere - anytime - and from any computer. Me, I don't really have a horse in the entry level race; I'm a spoiled Finale user.

"What other DAWs do you use?" is a required field - and "None" is not an option.

Thanks Rob, I'm perfectly capable of putting my foot in my mouth with the best of them. But I knew the job was dangerous when I took it, and I can take the heat. Like I said, I'm still forming my opinion on this, but there's a part of me that just can't resist playing devil's advocate, even when I don't realize it. Stop it! -- No! You stop it! So on the social agenda thing (that's what this thread is about, right?). I get that people use music to raise awareness about issues they feel are important, and I have found myself doing it, but I would qualify that by saying that for me personally the three most important motivators of my music have been the music, the music and the music. People here that know me through my posts know that I hate writing lyrics. I would probably sing about anything if I could find my Bernie Taupin. I wouldn't care if (s)he's the Anti-Christ with an agenda to get governments to shoot babies and puppies into outer space. I'm sure I would write about 20X the music I'm writing now. Now as it happens, I have to write my own lyrics and so I write about what comes into my mind, and my political and ontological views can't help but creep in there - and It just so happens that I like puppies.

Really? Did I say that people should do jobs for free? Nope - go back and read. I'm saying people shouldn't do whatever they want with the expectation that they should be paid for it, no matter what it is. If you don't want to perform for free, don't. Not unless you feel a great need to and people are unwilling to pay but you do it anyway. Let the market decide if they'll pay you. That's what's happening here. The writing of the song is not the valuable part. It's the performance that counts. Ask Vivaldi, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner - Oh and then we get to the 20th century.. And I'm not suggesting that song-writers can't make money in such a system. Not so. Did the engineers that sat behind the console during the recording of a massive hit get a piece of the action? Nope - they all negotiated and got their money up front. If in such a system, no one decides to write music because 'there's no money in it' I'd be shocked. If you are a good song-writer in the new system, whatever it may be, there should be people willing to pay you to write for them (especially if no one is willing to write HIGH QUALITY music for free as you seem to suggest). Just negotiate your contract upfront and wisely with the understanding that any money made as a result of your work will be because of their ability to disseminate it.

Hey, relax guys.. It's only a 'proffered' suggestion. I don't really have a strong opinion, but I do find myself leaning one way. As an amateur (one who creates music for love of music), I realize that the paradigm for compensation that I describe would create all kinds of additional chaos in the system, but honestly, it's a system I have little respect for. Where musicians are pawns who owe their souls to the Majors, and have been for longer than people care to admit, where who's rise to the top is has been largely decided by A&R, and where what people are fed on the radio is decided by the same. It makes it easier for me to be cynical because a large majority of the music is formulaically created and dispensed crap. Yes, I don't feed my family by writing songs, but I did struggle as an under-employed musician for many years. I didn't like the game then, so why should I like it now. The idea that you own the 'sound' is a relatively new one and it does present some awkward problems, but technology is going to force the issue on this one. It's already happening; there's no way to stop it. There are too many people out there who can make good music (often much better than what the mainstream cookie-cutter industry creates) who will be able to make a living independent of the system by giving their music away. Napster may have created the expectation, but musicians are beginning to embrace it philosophically. Not to mention musicians (like me) who are able to create reasonably high-quality music in their homes that couldn't be dreamed of 30 years ago. Might I think differently if I was at the top of the food chain? I dunno, but I would surely recognize that being at the top doesn't mean you are the best (in fact, given that you played the game it might even suggest otherwise) and that, even if I worked my butt off to get there, was still damn lucky. In fact, given the stat of the the industry, if I was making scads of money, I better be feeling guilty. Luckily, I don't give too much thought to this whole fiasco - because I don't have to. You guys do bring up a number good arguments for sure. What's the difference between a live performance at the local bar, and a movie? I think the difference is obvious. For one, the ability to enforce laws regarding the making and dissemination of movies is much greater. Is there a continuum of venues that could be disputed fraught with slippery slopes? Absolutely. Should people who claim to be "amateurs" be able to make budget movies and be exempt? I dunno. But the nature of mechanical rights is changing, and the notion that certain jobs/functions are sacrosanct just so people can put food on the table is harmful in the end. The 'job' of song-writer looks to be suspect. Why is that a bad thing? Did Beethoven or Mozart receive any money when their music was played elsewhere? I don't know, but I suspect not. Who would enforce such a crazy idea? They made money on the road, performing, conducting, etc. Eventually publishing became affordable and people bought sheet music and the music became theirs to perform anywhere and for any reason. Physical records and tapes supplanted that. I never bought sheet music. I lifted it right off the album. Ripping and sharing is just way too easy now; there's no way to control dissemination of music. Boom - done. And there you have it, the rise and fall of the songwriter. if this was TL;DNR, then the short answer to the question.. uhmm,, >>Googles Anachronism<< ..probably.

I'll proffer an alternative perspective.. Why should I want to limit the accessibility of my music to only people who can afford it? If all music is free, then all music hosting sites have to play on a level playing field. The ones that succeed are the ones that find the right audience for my music. If you want to hear me play my songs live or support my brand and merchandizing schemes - pay me (I control the value of my music.) If you want to use my song in your movie or advertising campaign, then sure - pay me, negotiating with me directly or through whatever service I choose with pre-negotiated rates. (I control the value of my music.) If you want to get a major artist to record it and release it to the public - it's free (acknowledge me). If you want to monetize that major artist's recording in a movie, etc. - pay me (I control the value of my music.) When that major artist takes my song on tour, should I get paid? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Neither do I want to be paid a royalty when your local band covers my song at your favorite bar. Again, why should I want to limit the accessibility of my music to only people who can afford it? Besides it just creates middle-man industries that are nothing more than a protection racket. Right now, your local establishment is paying fees to ASCAP and BMI just so someone can sing your song. A less-cluttered system will ultimately be more transparent, efficient and fair.

IMO 20% of cars on the road is less a prediction than an estimate - and I'm hoping for better than 20%; it's pretty clear that humans have no business driving cars ..especially these days with so many electronic distractions and the mounting proof that computer driven cars (preferably networked) can drive 99.9% safer, more efficiently, and are capable of putting more vehicles on the roads with much less traffic. I predict that "Pilotless" is and will not be recognized by spellcheck because "driverless" is what the word should be. One could just as easily argue that the the computer is piloting as they could argue that it is driving. Hell, I'm PLANNING on being able to get in my driverless car, go to a bar, drink a little too much and have the thing safely take me home.. Take a nap on the way home from work? Sure. When I'm retired, I'll get in the car and It'll say "Good morning, Mark. We're going to the RX to pick up your meds." I'll respond, "But I Don't take any meds, do I?" and it will reply, "Yes, you do Mark. Don't you worry about it. Just get in the car." Now as for the chip in the brain: I've been predicting that for years. Just 'think' and 'know.' Think and 'send.' Where are my children? Boom! (they're chipped). And I don't believe that it will necessarily be a class differentiator, because not unlike today's cell phones today, it will be affordable and ubiquitous. In fact, I predict the opposite: that brain chipping will be a societal equalizer. If anything, there might be a backlash of folks who refuse or don't need to participate in the chipping of humanity. Heck now that I think of it - they could actually end up being the elite 1% that get whacked in your predicted revolution. Beware the Borgevent. I'm not going to predict that - Way too scary.

OK, I'll take a qualified stand on the issue. Falsetto and headvoice are the same. I listened to the video above, and though I'm not an authority, I am an experienced trained singer, and I can say from experience that all the singer did was to close up/tighten and change the amount of air going through his vocal chords. What he calls head voice is what I would call a focused and more supported falsetto in a lower register. Using the what he calls the 'chest' voice is the cleanest, smoothest, least noticeable way to switch from falsetto to chest - or more accurately from falsetto to modal. but it's still falsetto. At best, the term could be used to describe a mixture of the two voices, but only as a descriptor, which might be helpful to the student. Here's a Wikipedia page that appears to be reasonably authoritative. Here's the qualified part of my stand. Down toward the bottom of the page, we find a refutation, but a careful look at the following sentence is revealing. If you 'prefer' the term head voice, but acknowledge that there is no head 'register,' then we are talking about about the same thing, with one falling into a sub-set of the other.

Write better songs.. I'm not saying your songs aren't good: I haven't even listened to them. But my point is, you need to be more specific. We're all here to write better songs. John's advice above is the best way to start if you can't be more specific. Post a song and ask for 'any and all.' -Mark

You probably should have put this in the critique section of the site.

Just in case the use of the word "unsophisticated" was in response to my earlier post. I'm considering changing my opinion here.. It's very possible that lyrical sophistication can be detrimental to a tune's UHP (UH Potential). Certainly, complexity is a no-no, both musically and lyrically. And Skylark.. Instrumentals don't count. I don't consider them to be 'songs.' If you've got an instrumental in your Top 40, then you really have a Top 39.

I like this one more.

On a serious note, here are some of my thoughts on writing a 'hit.' I think the key to writing a hit song is all about perception. You have to be 'in touch' with the sensibilities of the 'common' listener of the set of genres that comprise today's pop music. There is a certain amount of truth in the cartoon I posted @ #70. Yeah, pop music can be stupid simple, but it doesn't mean that it can't be sophisticated. On the other hand, the common listener's range of experience with musical styles and comfort with various melodic, rhythmic, harmonic, arranging techniques is quite narrow. Save for the fact that a lot of movie scores explore a wide array of compositional techniques, and/or use music from different eras, most people would have little to no taste for, or even exposure to the range of musical expression that's out there. Yes, a hit can be sophisticated, but it can't be complex. On the other hand, I think a certain amount of innovation can actually be a good thing, but the nature of that innovation can't stray too far from 'common' comfort zone. And I don't mean to berate or put down the common listener.. Just as they may not be able to differentiate Bach from Palestrina, Stravinsky from Persichetti, or Coltrane from Coleman, so would I not recognize or even be able to describe the differences between postmodern and neomodern architecture, much less be able to identify more than one architect synonymous with those styles. Yet, we all live in a world full of music AND buildings, and we all know when we like or don't like a building. Anyway, that's what I got for now. I'm sticking with my theory ..until someone bashes it to the ground.

Don't forget to research the genre you choose, making sure you include all or most of the critical UH components. Here's a helpful guide:

Ut Oh.. All my evil plans are being foiled by an angst-ridden tragic lyric - bathed in betrayal, reaking of rejection and ultimately drowned in despair and hopeless heartbreak. I probably shouldn't count on the wedding circuit.

Oh, and did I mention? They're going to insist on it for the first dance at all their weddings. I'll be sitting pretty well into the 2030's.

Hah! Your new super-catchy killer smash power-pop tune may have 'em tapping their feet Mr. Sage, but your UH will not fly as high in the charts as my heart-tearing tear-jerking knee-buckling power-ballad love song - carefully calculated to hit right where those 14-year-old girls have no self-control ..their dad's iTunes accounts. Now ..where is my calculator?