Lazz

A lady from South Carolina Strung fiddle strings 'cross her vagina: With the proper-sized cock, During sex, one got Bach's Toccata and fugue in D minoir.

Melody is core. I think it is always melody which lasts in the memory. At least that's my chosen delusion and - even as lyricist - I aim to work to that idea. Often I have operated in the style I believe Boff is describing - where I have a skeletal bed of rhythm and harmony over which I am expected to create both words and a melodic line and shape. But am very conscious of my own limitations and find that without the impetus of some more informed and imaginative changes my solo product is pretty pedestrian and uninspired from a musical point of view even if it can be fun at times. Lucky for me that I currently have slick co-writers for whom, as I understand it, the melody and chord structure develop together, much like Tom, as they chase down the expression of some unfolding inner motivating logic.

My mistake. I always presume songwriters will be students of the form. Hope the articles will all be interesting. Mine is now centred around history and terminology Sometimes it's hard to make these things fun and worthwhile reading.

It does seem that in the most effective/successful ditties of the day most of the central esential weight is carried by the pop-chorus. That's what is most generally intended to catch the ear and hang on, laden with an oft-repeated hook. If you will forgive me saying so, Boff, I think your asking of the question suggests that you might be listening to music falling within a pretty fixed range. There are the simpler folk forms which John alluded to including the basic old 'ballad' forms of eight or sixteen bars (e.g. 'Blowing In The Wind) These often become formulated as: 'simple verse structure' - where that one single shape is repeated and repeated. 'simple verse-chorus structure' - where the same musical shape is still happening, but lyrically there is a repeatad 'joining-in' section between each lyrically different verse. 'contrasting verse-chorus structure' - seemingly much less common - where those alternating lyric sections are actually different musically. Then there are 'blues-forms' which use a basic harmonic skeleton for an eight-bar shape or a sixteen-bar shape or, most often, a twelve-bar shape. Then, part-way through the last century, came the more sophicticated structure which I refer to as the 'modern chorus' - in which the verse happens just once at the beginning and is then forgotten about, leaving all work and attention to rest upon the body of the chorus - most usually 32-bars in length and bult with an AABA shape - which the Beatles were very fond of - but it could get as complex and meandering as the composer wanted and end up being 40 or maybe 60 bars long - there is no real fixed limit. Rock and roll then dumped all that nonsense and largely reverted to those old.folk-forms again. And now the dominant pop favourite seems to be settled at verse-chorus-verse-chorus, with another section commonly insinuated before the final triumphant chorus for emotional/dramatic impact - giving you the 'C' part of your ABABCB shape. In all cases it seems that the chorus definitely has primacy of focus. Interestingly, as a relevant aside perhaps, just the other day I heard again the lovely old Neil Young song 'Only Love Can Break Your Heart' - the words for which I have seen written out using the labels 'verse' and 'chorus' and 'bridge' - while the music/harmony remains the same 4-bars endlessly repeated - so reducing the lyrical divisions to much less significance in a way. John and I are both hacking at articles on structure - and have been for a while now - it's a slow race to see who finishes first.

This is why you need a teacher, Private First Class Brett. It's all very well being self-taught - I'll bet that most of us here are - and it's something to be proud of. But whenever the time comes when you want to get further quicker, then a teacher can save you time. You can also get misunderstandings (what's all this root. 3, 5 stuff ?) cleared up on-the-spot. Learning is such an individual thing that it works better with a little individual attention. It can prevent you making blind mistakes and chasing unproductive directions. And should also give you the basic shared vocabulary to make books and articles on the net more intelligible. If you had somebody else who knew a little more at you elbow, for instance, who knew what was going on, I'll bet they could clarify that problematic diagram for you in a couple of seconds. Wouldn't surprise me at all if you had someone like that in your regiment, right there, wherever you are. Stick an ad up - see what happens. Funny thing - I know a few people who joined the army so that they could become musicians. It worked, too - there is a wealth of talent and resources somewhere nearby.

That's great, Geraint. Thanks for the illumination. I just like to spell place-names as they are spelled in that place. But I was still quite happy that the questionnaire was legitimate.

Aah. My cue for another scurrilous anecdote. This one is undeniably apocryphal - but that doesn't matter. It seems Bill Gates and Honey Divine once enjoyed a personal encounter at the informed recommendation of Hugh Grant. "Mmmm" says Bill, "I can see where you got the name Honey Divine" "Yes" she agrees "And I can see where you got the name Microsoft". Bom-boom.

Actually - I had no doubt that the e-mail was above bpard. But am now beginning to entertain doubts over the wierd spelling of "München".

MS Songsmith

I like your attitude. Creative Commons obviously has made its ideologically-driven place in the contemporary media-universe. But - like Steve - it ain't for me. No way. Nope.

In the cartoon of my mind, I held a lighted taper and was firing Nightwolf from a cannon. And how come, on those rare occasions when I reach for an appropriate emoriton, there isn't one ?

BANG !!

You say 'Carm-ee-na' I say 'Carm-eye-na' You say 'Bur-aah-na' I say 'Bur-aye-na' 'Carm-ee-na' - 'Carm-eye-na' 'Bur-aah-na' - 'Bur-aye-na' Let's Carl the whole thing Orff !

I guess so. There is definitely a history out there of people trying to emulate the successes of others. But generally 'trends' per se have never made much impression on me. Been too busy trying to get to grips with basics. And aiming for beauty. Maybe I operate within one of these 'context-bubbles' - but certainly not "as if the rest of the music universe did not exist". From my perspective it's the trend focussed stuff which is most guilty in that department.

No problem. After all, John called you Nick, so think of it as fair exchange. I would like to add first that I am in agreement with John about sharing knowledge rather than making disagreements. And second - I find no substantive disagreement with Don's understandings at all. Quite apart from Berne - which is a bit of a red herring in this context - my only issue was with the common misrepresentation of how courts actually operate. This may seem quite specious to many - but for me it is quite fundamental. And my impression is that the point has been missed. I understand well enough that I am in a minority, but my experience has shown me that jurists are actually pretty hip: they not only generally know quite well what goes on in their area of specialisation but they definitely assess all evidence on its own merits. It serves no good purpose to pretend or presaume otherwise. That's all. The other main point from both of us is the sobering one about the notion of 'protection' that everyone is always after. Just as having house insurance won't prevent fire from gutting your home, so you can't prevent theft. It will be up to you though (no-one else will be interested) to enforce penalties. If you can afford it.

I have a confession. It's manageable most of the time, but I must admit a deep-seated prejudice and instinctive reaction to the merest sniff of a suggestion that US-borne prescriptions and practices are automatically by-definition inherently superior to any other. We Europeans have enjoyed the Berne Convention since 1886 you know and yet the US refused to sign up for over one hundred years so it sure seems a bit blatantly arrogant and Johnny-come-lately to be setting up US copyright registration as the gold-standard exemplar for the rest of the world..... I'll stop now - I'm coming over all funny.

Sorry mate - I keep overlooking your sensitiviies and dislike of dialogue. Forgive me. Let's just pretend I'm taking to myself for a bit: you say "The copyright is yours from the moment of creation" and I think "Hey - He's hip to the Berne Convention. Cool." you say "it will save a lot of money" and I think "Hmm. Practical, too. I like that." you say "official copyright does not protect your work from theft" and I think "Yeah! On the money. Straight to the nub of the issue. The simple truth and no messing" you say "but you'll never feel the joy (or pain) of other people's reactions to your creativity" and I think "You know - I really dig this guy's values" you say “... due to my lack of interest in the subject” and I think “I can’t believe that. If it were true, why would Don be bothering to offer opinion at all ?” you say “My response was based on the general knowledge of how US courts value the copyright registration, as you indicated in your second paragraph.” and I think “Well…., not exactly. Your post asserts that courts’ judgements about ownership will be determined by the bureaucratic facts of registration, whereas official US registration in truth influences their assessment of monetary value only. A finding for ownership is one thing: a punishment for its breach is another. They are different animals.” For me, that’s a factual legal issue and not a matter of opinion. I do have some small opinion difference, however, with your position that “copyright concerns for amateurs is, at best, a distraction and, at worst, a waste of valuable time”. I mean, I am definitely convinced by its clarity and persuaded by its good sense – and recognise that it’s definitely a conscious choice you have made for yourself – but my own feeling on the other hand is that at the very least whenever people reach the point of putting the question they deserve some straight and accurate answering. But, even having said that, I know what you mean.

A court makes judgement based upon evidence. US copyright registration does not automaticallty trump or exclude any other evidence to the contrary. These things are judged on their own merits. Of certain significance, however, is the fact that US courts can be shown to award considerably greater compensation in such cases where the work has been officially registered. Beats me just why they do that - the breach is exactly the same irrespective of a rubber stamp - but they do. So it's worth paying attention to. All signatories to GATS have agreed to the same laws governing copyright. (With the singular quirk being that the US is allowed to wriggle off-the-hook re: moral rights)

As Joe Roxhythe already said on the other thread - Soundclick uses date/time stamping. What this means is that in a dispute you would be able to demonstrate that you posted it on a particular day at a particular time. That could be useful. Let me be a real dickhead first and say a few things up-front: Soundclick lets enthusiasts like ourselves listen to a pretty narrow range of other folks' stuff. Whether you consider this a 'showcase' for 'getting some interest' (presumably from someone who can help you on your way) is a profoundly moot point. But personally - I would discount it completely. Is there seriously anyone in the business who consults Soundclick and the like ? I think not - I have never met anyone who pursues those avenues - they're all far too busy to waste time doing stuuf like that. Your mates and your mum will dig it - but that's about all it's worth. The other thing we need to face up to is the fact that protection is something which has to be enforced. It costs money to get a dispute before the beak. If you have a good case, and the offender is worth a load of dosh, then a lawyer will take you on for a contingency fee. If it's another kid on the block like you without a pot to piss in, then you are on a hiding for nothing. Is it an issue, then ? To be harsh and true - whenever this question has been raised and I have taken the trouble to listen to the music people are worried about, my honest response has been (without one single exception, mind you) to think "You must be effin' joking, old son. Why on earth would anybody want to nick this old tosh ?" That's just me, though - and I know piles of lovely musicians who make the most wondrous original music but no-one else knows or cares - while when I listen to whatever it is seems to be making money at any time my response is usually still of the "You must be effin' joking." variety - so what do I know, really ? So one truly never knows I suppose But I think a little realism helps. All I can really recommend is that you focus on doing what you do to the best of your ability and keep working to be better. And that you rest secure on the automatic copyright which exists in law for whatever you make of your own. And hope that if any clown does make a move to steal from you they are wealthy enough to make it worthwhile chasing them. Good luck. Stick with it.

Be my guest - as long as it's rendered intelligible - unlike the confused mess I dashed off in response. I agree. Compared to the original source though, that extra value detail seems to have been applied most to the Single Song Agreement section. And that's the deal I have never personally come across. Funny old world.

Good fist, John. Exactly the same set of categories that I use. This is a much needed and welcome addition to songstuff stuff. Here be my comments: 1. Hard to get that balance between concision and clarity, I know, but the Co-Pub section goes a bit soft and woolly from my end - where you say "The Net Publisher's Share is gross income and is divided up like this:....", it seems to fall short on the clarity quotient and I lose track of what you mean. 2. I think the "Variable" section could benefit from a bit more detail and fullness. It concerns me that much of importance is omitted here. Fancy a re-write ? If we structure our concerns under three headings for simplicity's sake, I would tend to favour something like 'The Property', ''The Extent", and "The Money".... (we could probably do better for rubrics, but anyway, I'm just sayin'.....): The Property Somehow, an agreement will have to spell out what it is we're talking about exactly - the scope of the deal, what compositions are involved etcetera, what rights in terms of the works are being traded, and what is going to constitute 'delivery' of your end. There are traps and tricks at every turn and numerous things of which the songwriter 'should be mindful' buried in there. Generally, they want it all. Moral rights get dealt with as well. The Extent It is sensible to recognise up-front that a self-interested party is going to want the rights to everything, for everywhere, for ever and ever. How much of everything is what we need to beware of already in the terms which define the nature of 'the property', as above, but other considerations will be 'the term' and 'the territory'. When we think of 'the term' for example, the duration of the deal can turn out to be very amorphous: it is not uncommon for a 'term' to be defined by a specified number of 'pieces' which have been 'delivered'. And often 'delivery' will be defined in the agreement as something like 'recorded by an artist on a major label' or some such other clever wording that means your time is never served if hit-making success proves elusive. Co-writers also need to look out for the trick whereby each qualifying 'piece' may be defined as being a 'sole composition'. This again means, if you're a collaborator (not an unusual circumstance), that you will never fulfil your contractual obligations and 'the term' will never end. So we need to make sure that 'term' gets defined explicitly as a calender period rather than the usual nonsense they expect to get away with by dangling money. And however 'the property', as above, is defined, we need to makes sure that we get it all back at the term's completion. 'Rights Reversion' must be an essential requirement - from the writer's point of view.. They all want world-wide rights to maximise their earnings potential. Actually, these days, with the rise of satellites and possible off-world futures, it's usually extra-terrestrial rights for the entire universe as well. We all need to restrict that any chance we have in terms of what's realistic and appropriate - if you have no market in the spanish-speaking world. for instance, and the publisher has no particular strategic muscle in those cultures, then why on earth should they have exclusive rights for our stuff in south-America ? The Money This notion covers things like the advance and royalty splits - and also other important areas of budgetary prestidigitation regarding expenses like admin costs, legal fees and indemnifications etcetera - all those things that accumulate and interfere with you getting paid your end. That's why we need the right to audit, too. *** Would that sort of approach help any, do you think ? I'm a firm believer that contracts don't have to be intimidating - although it is obviously to somebody's advantage if they remain so - there has to be a simplified way of making sense of them - I know sometimes it's a struggle, but there is no substitute for getting to grips by reading the damn things and getting your own understanding. Sometimes lawyers pay much less attention to detail than we would like.

But isn't that exactly what performers are expected to do ? At least, it is certainly the case where I live that an 'artist' has an obligation to 'own' a song and occupy it as a convincing dramatic performance space. Hey - welcome to Songstuff, Danny - but I just don't get your premise. It seems false to me. Let's start with "I Shot The Sherrif' for example, then maybe move on to Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison ("I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die") From my perspective it would appear that a huge deal of pop/rock history is based solidly on the development of 'bad boy' personae. The list of examples is too large to be overlooked, surely.

That's another meeting I must have missed.

Would that be feng shui ? Or modern dance ?

Great quote - and completely new to me. Where's it from ? It is my impression that the 'indie' thing is certainly getting counted - car-trunk rap sales make a worthy comparison point. But of course 'indie' has been arounf for farkin ages though in one form or another, hasn't it ? I mean. for anyone like myself largely involved in the world of jazz it's always the case. One other big point to be made here is that in order for 'the industry' to 'officially' count your sales you are required to pay for the privilege. It costs a small fortune to get registered with SoundScan and play with the big-boys. Why would we bother ? Oh - and I spent a long time on an earlier response before you posted your latest, so I thought I would let the following fly anyway. Forgive me. Here it is..... Yo Joe. Far canal And bugger me gently. This is very weird – like criticizing football ‘cos it ain’t hockey. The study is explicitly about on-line retail downloads. NOT CDs – whether by gig-sale or CD Baby – NOT CDs. NOT bit-torrent either. OK – so it would be interesting to get a comparative contextual shot at the entire landscape. But that plain ain’t what this is. Will Page’s salary-paying constituency resides predominantly inside that notional long-tail – they are the majority of little publishers writers and composers we don’t get to hear about as well as the Chappells and EMIs and McCartneys. What can possibly be self-serving about telling your employers that the latest theory they’ve all been hanging on to doesn’t actually turn out to be very robust ? The ‘long-tail’ came touted as the golden-goose. Where’s the percentage in killing it off ? And just exactly how would such a thing be self-serving ? I need that spelling out to me, please. Appreciate it. Please note, also, that ‘the industry’ does not appear overly keen to disseminate this info widely. Perhaps, from a PR viewpoint, that could be self-serving. I too am distrustful of stats. Skepticism about source is always a good move. This source appears to have impeccable credentials. This source appears to be personally and professionally committed to the making of policies which are evidence-based rather than the making of evidence which is policy-based. This source appears to be at least as skeptical as you and me. (Read the TelCo interviews – pretty deep and open) As for what is being measured: For the Literary Digest – it was voting intention. For Will Page et al – it was download retail over a 12 month period. Voting intention is something people can and do lie about just to mess with the research, and you can always change your intention any time you want right up until the point of actually doing it. Download purchases can only be identified through the completed act of actually doing it. That seems a huge difference right there. As for how the measuring is done: For the Literary Digest – their method generated a predictably very skewed sample in most basic socio-economic terms. (Normally, such limitations would be stated right up-front – but this was the Literary Digest after all – hardly a paragon of objectivity or literary or journalistic standards, and certainly without a fully open agenda.) For the Page mob – all we know is that it is based on actual sales records over a time-period. We don’t know where these records came from, or how representative they might be of the universe on which they are commenting, or many other details at all about their sample. That’s exactly what Chris Anderson (‘Long-Tail’ author) is bitching about on his blog – that Page et al won’t give him access to the methodology or data-sets in advance of publication – but even he doesn’t have the temerity (advisedly) to question the integrity of the researcher All we know for sure, however the data was generated, and despite Anderson’s irrelevant protestations that there are extant business models where his theory might be genuinely applicable, the distribution does not have a long-tail. Dear Joe – with the greatest love and respect – and oodles of kudos to you for personal persistence and consistent delivery – but this reads to me as a shining example of being ‘self-serving’. The industry has no such deliberate policy. The guys who run their businesses are always trying to make money in the traffic of unpredictable fads and fancies. They are always obscenely hot for the next new thing, a pretty face with haircut and trousers they can market to the indiscriminately trend-conscious in exchange for their disposable income – which conveniently leaves guys like you and me way outside the general equation – although, in effect, the next new thing is merely some kind of re-incarnation of the same old new thing…. But they are always on the lookout for whatever they think they can sell. Nowadays, more than ever unlike before, the main reason they think they can sell stuff is because the stuff is already selling. When and where they own resource-power, however, they do have a natural tendency to work as much market maximization and market maintenance as they can muster: i.e. they have power and money to play but little if any control over which horse is the best bet. Gobsmacked again, guv'nah. Say it ain’t so, Joe. It is totally untrue that the industry is ignorant of these things: 1) performance is the primary promotional point-of-sale 2) new media (largely owned and controlled by the same entertainment conglomerates anyway) is an active avenue for marketing and distribution. The current popular shape of music contracts is an obvious reflection of those facts. Yeah ! Good song from Joni, nice story, taut imagery – but maybe a concept appropriate for altogether different times. Just around one handful of years back, Warner had big plans for a new young Irish boy. I can’t remember his name and never heard his stuff. But the big WEA honchos definitely dug it. And remember they are no novices at this game. They had a plan. And a promo strategy. They allotted a multi-million budget for the project. Significantly – and despite their best efforts and skills and business acumen – the boy ultimately sold a paltry 734 units. That’s the power and control dichotomy: they have the power of all those marketing resources – yet they can never really control whether joe (excuse me) public actually picks up what they’re laying down. I remember vividly also once watching the board at Island in the days when Frankie was around. Frankie wasn’t all they had that month, of course. Far from it. Same as every other cycle, there was a volume of other shit they had thrown against the wall at the same time. But it was Frankie Goes To Hollywood which stuck the hardest. So it was Frankie Goes To Hollywood who got all the heavy resource power market muscle and publicists and media mechanics lined up behind ‘em. The rest just kinda slid off the wall and got ignored to death – including whatever the feck I was involved with at the time – but it wasn’t planned and no-one was in control. The world of commercial fad-driven opportunism doesn’t actually work like that on the ground. It has to be responsive for survival. The control delusion too often leads to the Warner-style woes of the previous example. Best to wait and see what’s shifting and then put the muscle behind the money-maker. Radio is a very different animal – and a bright pink halibut, too. Radio, like print, is about selling an audience to advertisers. So they max the audience through the lognormal playlist. You know it makes sense. For what it’s worth, by being selective and paying attention to programmers and programming, I have no trouble at all getting any of our stuff played in the land of non-profit radio. Problem is that packing and mailing and calling becomes an expense without compensation – because radio-play these days has absolutely zip impact on sales - and unless you have a cocaine and whores budget, as well as the product, to wangle your way onto the log-normal playlists of the bigger networks, there is an aperture for crossover which is firmly closed in our direction. But who listens to radio anymore ? That’s another story…. Innit. More and more I am tickled by Sturgeon's Revelation that "90% of everything is crap".