Songwriters, Society and Social Responsibility

[john]

Hi gang

 

I wanted to have a discussion about the role of songwriters within the modern world.

 

Historically, songs have been both a commentary, and taken an active place in shaping society. Even back in the 60s and 70s there were many songwriters who felt they had a responsibility to act as a mirror on society, to offer a commentary on it's successes and excesses. They tried to change the world around them. Even in the 80s, many pop songs disguised a lyrical commentary on the world around us.

 

But somewhere along the road, the world changed, and the songwriters changed with it. A schism occured, a break in the fabric of reality, where everything became about shortcuts and popularity. Songwriters changed with it. Songs became less challenging, and more about conforming endorsement, more self serving and purile... which in itself is less of a mirror of the society in which we live, and more of a manifestation of the same.

 

Yet, here is the problem. Music and songwriters are taken for granted. The role they play is less challenging, less vital. This is paralleled by a society that is more fragmented, more volatile. We have generations who feel they are without voice. In many ways this is true.

 

i have always had a strong element of cause based songwriting within my own songs. I know there are others out there... I see them writing on the boards, of nowhere else.

 

what do you think? Has our wholesale abandonment of cause based songs contributed to this? Do you believe we have any responsibility in this regard? Should song writing now be about purely acting as entertainment? Should it act as a mirror? Should it be going beyond that, and be active on shaping society?

 

Cheers

 

John

[john]

8 minutes ago, RobAsh15 said:

Has our wholesale abandonment of cause based songs contributed to this?

 

Just a quick reply at this point... although not voiced clearly by me (I typed it in the car while Karen was in a shop lol) I was meaning as an industry. As mentioned elsewhere in my original post we have a number of writers on these boards who write these kind of songs (including myself), however what makes it through to the charts these days is as challenging as scratching your nose. Generally. Mostly.

 

[TripMX]

On 6/25/2016 at 9:43 PM, john said:

what do you think? Has our wholesale abandonment of cause based songs contributed to this? Do you believe we have any responsibility in this regard?

There are still many artists making caused-based songs albeit the unpopular ones.  These types of songs were more effective in the 70s~90s due to the fact that some wild stuff happened back then, the times were simpler, and people actually listened to the radio.  Making a song depicting the horrors of terrorism (for example) just isn't going to hold water, and will be easily shunned and deemed cheesy in today's society.  Industry-wise, it's the same case; you'll be laughed at, ridiculed, and rejected by most.

 

Do we have a responsibility in this regard, you ask?  Well, if you have the fame and money, it is up to you to do what you feel is "right"; just be aware of where you stand along with the possible repercussions that come with the modern age.

 

 

Quote

Should song writing now be about purely acting as entertainment? Should it act as a mirror? Should it be going beyond that, and be active on shaping society?

Song writing should be a boundless free endeavor, be it mirror or shadow.  You can try to shape society, but without being known, your "shaping" will simply be niche at best.

Edited June 27, 2016 by TripMX

[Rudi]

Certain artists are driven to make social comment or political comment. Its not a matter of decision making.

Those who try to do this without the motivation usually produce rubbish.

 

Those of us here are often encouraged to think about writing in a professional manner. All well and good, but it rarely goes hand in hand with writing with a passion.

[MonoStone]

Artists should write about whatever they want.... and on the whole they do. 

 

I think there's a real skill in making songs for a cause still 'beautiful'... I'm sure there must be artists out there doing it... I think Graham Nash is still at it....  but Billy friggin Brag and his like kind of spoiled things. Yeah actually...you can blame any lack of such artists on Billy friggin Brag!   Oh and BONO!

[MonoStone]

Oh and Bob friggin Geldof! Not that he ever wrote one (that I can think of) but I lumping him in with Billy Brag for being an irritant. Some artists just turned people off 'causes' through their actions and media ranting, even without their songs.

[Rudi]

1 hour ago, MonoStone said:

Oh and Bob friggin Geldof! Not that he ever wrote one (that I can think of) but I lumping him in with Billy Brag for being an irritant. Some artists just turned people off 'causes' through their actions and media ranting, even without their songs.

 

You are almost certainly unaware of the fact that 'Frigin' (not to be confused with 'frigging') is actually one of Geldof's names. It's Robert Frederick Zenon Frigin Geldof. Frigin being a tradition Irish name of Celtic origin.

[MonoStone]

31 minutes ago, Rudi said:

Robert Frederick Zenon Frigin Geldof

 

Well.. he was appropriately named!

[MonoStone]

28 minutes ago, HoboSage said:

LOL  I've never even heard of Billy Brag.

 

You're missing nowt mate!

[Rudi]

1 hour ago, MonoStone said:

 

Well.. he was appropriately named!

 

Gotcha!

[MonoStone]

1 minute ago, Rudi said:

Gotcha!

 

[M57]

On June 25, 2016 at 8:11 PM, RobAsh15 said:

        So, what do we do about it? Guys, if I had a pat answer to that question, the chances are good I wouldn't be here, participating in this exchange. I'd be filthy rich, and off on my yacht somewhere, showing my wife the world she thought she'd never get the chance to see in our lifetimes. But one thing I think must be done IS being done, by and large. We must all, collectively, continue to view our music as a thing with inherent VALUE. We must protect our rights, and offer our music for sale. On websites, and yes, even on CD's, where the chance to generate revenue is a real one. Whatever mode we adopt to try and sell our songs, we must always think of what we do as intrinsically valuable. Worth a buck, or a quid... a mark, or a Euro, as the case may be.

 

       If we ever buy into the zeitgeist that music is inherently valueless, then we are done. In one fell swoop, we will all be reduced to street corner performers, playing our songs for coins in a guitar case. The funny thing about that statement is that I know a couple of fellows who do that very thing, and make a solid living at it. So many other models for making money in the music business cannot make the same claim. I will say this, in closing, on this point: I firmly believe that there is a person, or, more likely, a number of people, who are, at this very moment, working on that which will come to be known as the device, or the program, or the safeguard, or whatever, that saved the music industry, and restored an artist's ability to protect and defend the copyright she holds on her music.

 

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.

Edited July 20, 2016 by M57

[john]

1 hour ago, M57 said:

 

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.

 

It's wandered some way from the original topic... but...

 

Your proposal sounds entirely like someone who doesn't rely upon music to keep a roof over your head or food in your family's tums. What you are describing is pretty well a hobbyist or semi-pro scenario at best, because very, very few could live on what you suggest. All the more so when many venues want small bands to play for nothing or in some cases pay to play. Certainly making a living on such a set up would be very difficult. For non-performing songwriters, even more so. As it is the industry is biased towards artists and labels, in comparison to the almost non-entity of songwriters.

 

As a disabled writer I am very much limited to recording music. Any performance is very, very limited for a number of reasons.

 

The thing is, streaming sites charge listeners, and charge advertisers, and then pass very very little on to the band. Songwriters get even less.

 

you mentioned one thing... several times " I control the value of my music " That should apply to whether I want to give my music away for free or not. People can then decide if they are prepared to pay for it or not. I as the seller can adjust my price accordingly.

 

Why should I not be paid? If you were a plumber you wouldn't come to my house and do the plumbing on the basis that it would give you exposure. You would be very unlikely to say "plumbing free to the general public

 

i do not disagree that it is your right to give away anything that is yours (I encourage any chefs to come cook for me, and I need some building work and decorative work done. I promise to pass on your name if you do!), even though it undermines the professional industry (particularly the lower end) but it is your music, your choice.

 

But to kill the pro industry and essentially make it all hobbyist or semi-pro is to lose a whole stack of experience. Indeed, with that scenario, there are many household names that we just wouldn't have heard of... because they needed to keep a roof over their head and put food in their family's tums! Working part time or hobbyist we then lose a lot of the dependent industries, from graphic artists to session musicians to sound engineers and producers.

 

There are non-essential roles, but lets not forget what ASCAP and BMI etc do. They collect monies from people who make money from your music. The sources are diverse and numerous. They exist because at a certain level of success it becomes untenable to manage it all.

 

You might think that setting a price to get paid by film and TV programme makers, or from advertisers is ok, but those costs just get passed on to film goers, TV subscriptions and product purchasers. I understand you can set the price here, because those people plan to make money from your music... how is that different from a streaming site making money from your music, even if it is based on advertising income alone? How is taht different from venue owners who attract people to buy alcohol in part based upon the music they play? Are all these people allowed to make money from music... but the musician? Even more so the case for a songwriter.

 

One more thing. You say your music not limited to only those who can afford it. Isn't that the point of radio? they can access your music. Using free streaming they can get access to songs on deman too. Apart from that... the average album has cost thousands to make. Artist graphics, buying equipment, if you have a band, then rehearsal time too. Buying recording gear, software. Marketing and promotion... even if we do it ourselves. If you do a traditional pressing it costs about $400 for a glass master, then printing, cellophane wrap etc. Distribution too. If you don't want many people to hear your music you can do your own promotion and distribution.... isn't that limitation even MORE limiting than cutting people out who cannot afford your music?

 

That aside... you can always do specials that are free. Free gigs. Free online gigs. TV appearances. Radio appearances.

 

The average CD costs the price of 5 cups of coffee. Not exactly huge.

 

 

 

[Guest Rob Ash]

2 hours ago, M57 said:

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.

 

You know, it's funny. When I wrote the post that this is in response to, I was actually thinking that live performance was a big part of the future for musicians. Personally, I hope the trend continues in that direction. The release of new music by an artist would become a thing tantamount to an act solely in support of an upcoming tour. The TOUR would be the revenue generator.

 

I'm not sure I like the way you refer to branding and "merchandising schemes"... seems somehow inherently cynical to me. A brand, and the presentation to the public that helps establish it, can be an honest thing. It does not, by fiat, have to be a contrivance.

 

As far as your music in a movie; again... I don't follow. Do you want to protect your rights, or is your music free for all? What's the inherent difference between a local artist covering your song at the corner watering hole, and someone in Hollyweird using your song in a movie? Both may be defined as individual creative efforts executed for the purpose of generating revenue. It could easily be argued that the movie provides the far greater exposure to new and existing fans.

 

Does everyone get to cherry pick their rights... which to give up and which to protect, as you indicate you wish to do? Historically, no system has suffered well amidst such chaos. I also am not sure how such a system qualifies as less cluttered. Not to mention the fact that many "establishments" here in America have, over the last couple of decades, stopped paying fees for the right to have cover bands play. Bigger clubs and venues still do, due to their exposure, but small local venues now proceed on the unspoken assumption that the band has obtained rights to perform whatever music they play. I can't recall ever hearing a story where the rights of usage cops came down on owner or band for such infractions. In other words, the system has broken down on many, many levels.

 

What is happening now, in my opinion, is the various big players in the music business are all vying for the biggest remaining pieces of pie. Scraps and crumbs are being allowed to fall to the floor. No one else can grab up these smaller sources of potential revenue because of the very legal protections they still wear. I think that may be the main potential issue with your idea. If an artist fails to stipulate the status of ALL his/her collective rights, someone will find a way to exploit the gaps. And once lost, such rights are incredibly difficult to re-obtain.

 

In America, incorporating is easy and cheap. I'm not familiar with what is required to establish one's self as a "label", other than to describe your business as a producer and publisher of music. I've heard a lot of disgruntlement among the ranks when talk of this idea surfaces. I'm not sure why. Setting yourself up as a small business is a relatively easy task to add to the load of an up and coming artist. And once done, ALL rights are protected. The artist enjoys the same legal protection and footing as BMI and ASCAP. The same loophole that affords the big fish such an advantage against unincorporated artists allows them to sue to protect the rights of any individual artist, on a far more level playing field. I think a far better question to ask is why any serious artist coming up the ladder WOULDN'T incorporate, and that damn quickly.

 

I personally have no problem with the industry shaking itself out and taking on a new form. The very idea that much of anything in human affairs remains static over time is frivolous and fanciful. Change is an element of the human genome. No, what bothers me is the suffering of small fish in the pond while things sort themselves out. The sharks are taking advantage of what must be a temporary state of chaos, at the expense of those without the means or the knowledge to protect their property.

 

Which, by the way, does nothing to address the needs of lyricists and non-performing song writers. What happens to the work of those who cannot tour to earn an income? Do we simply write off these (careers, professions) as anachronistic?

 

No, M. We need to be able to protect our rights. ALL our rights. And that protection has to apply to everyone, from the bottom of the industry to the top, equally. Google, to offer one gross example, cannot be allowed to rape the intellectual strong boxes of tens of thousands of artists and get away with it merely because they can afford to hire the best, and the most lobbyists.

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Rob Ash

[M57]

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..

 

Quote

Which, by the way, does nothing to address the needs of lyricists and non-performing song writers. What happens to the work of those who cannot tour to earn an income? Do we simply write off these (careers, professions) as anachronistic?

 

uhmm,, >>Googles Anachronism<< ..probably.

Edited July 20, 2016 by M57

[Just1L]

7 minutes ago, M57 said:

the notion that certain jobs/functions are sacrosanct just so people can put food on the table is harmful in the end.

 

Really? How so? Reading this it seems your suggesting that people should believe that what they do, whatever that is, has no value and to think getting paid to support a family is harmful? So you would agree then that you yourself should not be paid for the work you do, whatever that may be? Would you really go to your boss and say "Look, I'll still work the same hours, but I don't want any of your money?" I can only guess you have a lot of money somewhere so you don't really need a job and/or have nobody to take care of but yourself.

 

What about farmers? Would a non-harmful way be to have all food free and it's up to the farmers to not only continue planting and working in the fields all day long, but also find another way to earn the money needed for producing said food, paying mortgage, fixing cars, health insurance, etc… That seems insane to me and close to one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Yet, that's what is happening more and more and will continue.

 

I've also heard that in the future of "work", there will be no job security. Work for a while and move on to the next job. Of course having to do that is a huge mental strain on human beings. Living without any kind of security and always needing work is a sad, sad way of life not to mention what it actually does for your physical well-being. But humans be damned. 

 

The moronic internet's notion that everything should be free is the most harmful thing going. Yet you won't see the tech companies saying what they do should be free. They would never accept the fact that they should give their stuff away. But wait, they do give stuff away for free. Facebook is entirely free. Enter the investors. The real people of power. They control it all. So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer … the way it should be.

 

Lastly, I've often wondered … If the music itself is always free, why shouldn't concerts also be free?

[M57]

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. 

Edited July 20, 2016 by M57

[Just1L]

As a person who can't seem to write about anything but societal issues I have to say I feel no responsibility to do it whatsoever. It's just what comes out. All music is done for different reasons and it's hard to prove one reason is better or more valuable than the other. Yes, music is entertainment and we do need to see it that way. But it's much more than that. It's also very cathartic for the listener as well as the songwriter. Good music taps into the feelings whatever those may be. That's kind of what today's mainstream music is all about and that part is good. What is missing from music today though is the thought provoking, real life issues. There's some yes, but I don't think enough. In this day and age I think those real life issues should be back in the mix but taken a step further by not only addressing the problems but also aiming towards resolutions.

 

I'll use rap music for an example. When Eazy-E/NWA came about they were indeed singing about their society. I really loved it when it came out. Infatuated with it as a matter of fact. Around 1992 I started to get turned off. It was weird because in all actuality it was exactly the same as it was when I loved it. In the end I came to the conclusion that it was the fact that it hadn't changed that turned me off. I can only hear about peoples problems for so long before I get to the point to where I wanted to say "If it's so bad, then why are you still doing it?" Not implying that people didn't want those problems fixed. Not saying that the problems weren't, and aren't, still there. I think I saw it as an opportunity for rappers to bring an issue to light and then try to help solve it. 1) Identify and let it be known what the problems are. 2) Find a solution to those problems and shift from just stating the problems to overcoming those problems. Step 2 still hasn't been done. I feel now rap music isn't just relaying the problems of the inner city, it's also glorifying them and it is directing kids to that lifestyle. Just think if the music stated the problem and then suggested what needed to be done to fix those as well. Rap music is one of the most powerful out there and I think it should be used for advancing society, not keeping them in the same spot.

 

I hope to hear more songs in the mainstream one day that not only bring up the issues, but also try to tackle them as well.

 

[Just1L]

I guess I misunderstood. What did you mean by that line then? 

Edited July 20, 2016 by Just1L

[Guest Rob Ash]

Don't apologize for your opinion, M. Just be aware that if you state it here, it will likely be challenged unless it is pat, and few arguments are, after all.

 

More to the point, I think, is the fact that such discussion and debate is what we musicians, as a group, need to do. It's our future in the end. Better that we decide which way the ship travels than the fickle waves and winds of fortune.

 

SO long as we don't spend TOO long debating. Time marches on.