Lazz

I think I get it: looks like you are misinterpreting the term, John. It’s not ‘long’ in the sense of time at all (‘though it used a year’s worth of data) just in terms of the tail’s plotted ‘length’. All it refers to is the graphic shape of the data measure on a graph representation. Most ordinary distributions (the usual ‘lognormal’) are the same ‘bell-curve’ shape where most everybody occupies the regular lumpen mass of the picture with a relatively small curve outwards at the bottom where all those who deviated from the norm hang out – but they don’t hang out very far. The ‘long tail’, by comparison, is shaped more like a hockey stick where the bit that hits clusters up around the vertical axis while the handle stretches away low and long on the horizontal to accommodate a more diverse range of musical choices. Anderson’s ‘long-tail’ picture of what’s going on is pretty much purely theoretical, though. While Page’s preference is to be evidence-based at all times. Hi Joe – sorry, mate, this seems a pretty spurious distinction. Measuring techniques are what generate the numbers, so I fail to understand how you can accept the data while dumping the methodology. Especially as we know so little (it is not yet published) about how they did whatever it was they were up to. For something like this though – my guess is that it involved counting (which, as a technique, seems fairly reasonable). Anderson agrees with you alright, but he has a career rep hanging on it. He is bitching at the moment because Page et al won’t release the full data so that he can tear into it. And neither is it known for sure from where and how they collected their data – they won’t say – but, with 13 million tracks as sample inventory, the smart money leans towards iTunes as the major or even sole source. I see neither validity nor value in this comparison. Maybe I’m missing something. Care to elucidate ? That’s like ordering a hamburger and bitching because it doesn’t have power windows. (Sorry – you’re in the wrong shop.) As I understand it, the long-tail theory as well as the surrounding debate has specific relevance ONLY for internet media business models. (If you know of anywhere else it may be applicable, I would like to be made aware of it.) The study was of on-line retail downloads – so (very sensibly, I think) that’s what they looked at. They were not focusing at all, in any sense whatsoever, on live indie gig-sales of physical CDs. The aim (as far as I am aware) was to subject this modern long-tail theory to testing. It was in both the Garundia and the Thunderer on December 22nd The first public presentation of data was at the TelCo conference in November. Perhaps I should have mentioned this before, but I did predict there was a 99.98% chance that somebody would reference this quote – which I believe should be more fairly attributed to Mark Twain..

So far, I notice only one very brief media reference to the study. I had to search and burrow for further detail. Could it be that this bad news was intentionally buried by releasing it Christmas week ? A cynic wonders who would do that ? And why ? Neither do I find reference on the MCPS-PRS Alliance website - and it's their research, as far as I know. Perhaps it's available only to their members. Has this been reported elsewhere at all ? Anyone notice ? "Do they consider 2 years to bee a long tail?" John - I have no idea - in the context of what exactly - can't see where that fits.

Do you remember “The Long Tail” ? In a famous 2004 Wired magazine article, Chris Anderson borrowed the old post-war statistical concept of a frequency distribution with a long tail and re-made it in the form of a notion to illuminate internet media business successes. Low operation and inventory costs, according to Anderson, allow significant profit to be realized from the sale of small volumes of hard-to-find items to many customers, rather than large volumes of a narrow range of popular ‘hit’ items. And the existence of the Long Tail, as a sustaining demographic purchasing a large number of "non-hit" items, thus became an article of faith in the new ‘indie’ ideology This received wisdom, however, that diverse specialised items – though individually less popular - will together outsell mainstream ‘hits’, has now been profoundly compromised by actual analysis of one year’s music revenue in a study led by Will Page, Chief Economist for the UK’s royalty collections agency the MCPS-PRS Alliance. Here is the sad grounded truth about the digital universe: * Of the 1.23 million albums available on-line, only 173,000 were ever bought and paid for – the remaining 85% failed to sell one single copy. * Of the 13 million individual tracks available by internet sale, only 20% were ‘active’, in that they managed to sell at least one copy. * More than 10 million tracks failed to find one single buyer. * Approximately 80% of sales revenue came from around 3% of these active tracks – numbering about 52,000 – the ‘hits’ which powered the industry. * Only 40 tracks sold more than 100,000 copies, and accounted for 8% of the business. (In the physical world, 40 tracks could make up just 4 albums). The Two Main Lessons: * The general rule for all inventory on the digital shelf is 80/0.38 – that is, 80% of revenue is generated by sales on only 0.38% of all available tracks. * 80% of individual tracks sell nothing at all. In their brief report on this research, The Guardian cheekily quoted Sturgeon’s Revelation (they called it ‘Sturgeon’s Law’) that “90% of everything is crap” – which I found pithy, appealing, and potentially perfectly apposite. Read an interview with Will Page HERE.

There is one terrific example of wilful misinterpretation gives me as much amusement as consternation: Don't know how far this treatment extends south of the border, but up here in Canada it seems not unusual for Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" to be applied to lots of 'feel-good' images and messages to do with natural environments coupled with some vague sense of benign nationalistic identity and togetherness much like an all-purpose Pepsi/Coke routine. The enormity of the irony still seems lost on most, however, who seem blithely unaware of its origin as an anthem for the Wobblies. They don't know who the Wobblies are and seem generally short on any broad sense of economic history. In a perverse way, I just love that degree of misconception where revolutionary iconography like this can get so neatly co-opted to serve whatever it was kicking against in the first place. When it's used for an ad, the reading is all about sea-to-shining-sea, wild life, mountains, pristine rivers and smiling multiculturalism. But when I hear the song, I am thinking about Joe Hill, and union-busting, and the depression, and the dust-bowl, and all that other nasty stuff.. Funny old world.

There is one argument that attributes "Don't Stop The Carnival" as a Trinidad traditional number. On the other hand, it is more commonly credited to Sonny Rollins.

It's a funny old game. A few days back, had I been in New York, I could have gone to hear Messaien's Turangalila Symphony - something I have long wished for - at a price between $10 and $25. That is more than decent, I reckon - and well within reach of the curious explorer.

Here's a little Video Tribute assembled by the Grauniad. Sorry to interrupt with bad news. Carry on.

OK Here's a little thing I am curently fooling around with. Working title is "Newf and Goat". Nothing at all to do with either Alistair or Far Eastern Canada. More to do with colloquially phonetic pronunciation for part of the hook. I never quite knew how to dance before Then I caught sight of you across the floor Became enchanted by your terpsichore More and more Si senor. I took you in my arms and suddenly I felt that rhythm charm more nat’rally It came as easily as 1 2 3… A B C… Yes sirree Now I know how it feels When you kick up your heels Giving up to the “Go man, go!” Of the new fangled tango

Were you guys aware that Davy Graham popped his clogs this Monday ? Or is this some big cosmic coincidence ? And that he originally spelled that tune title "Anji" ? Answers on a postcard, please.

Everything makes an impression. Just the facts, ma'am. I had missed your introductory post and went back and read it in the interim. And I am impressed to be makinge acquaintance with the son of sharecroppers. Bet that's a Songstuff first. (I'm their first ex-tunnel-miner) That similarity is what made me reach for the quote. They aren't thoughts original to him, either. It's all quite commonly shared craft lore. Just that he expresses it so nicely and concisely in the lovely essay which introduces the collection of lyrics. Oscar is eternal. It varied some: Jerome Kern was a tetchily rigorous and demanding old git who delivered the music first and would not countenance even the most minor alterations to accomodate sense or syllables; Richard Rodgers was a far better match I think - for whom Oscar predominantly wrote lyrics first. But he wrote them with a pronounced musical sensibility and awareness. (No surprise, I guess, if you've already worked with guys like Kern, Youmans and Romberg) I don't think I do either - well, sometimes it becomes more conscious - but I do aim for authenticity within the idiom. Which means in effect that I can't do country or rock well

From my view out here in stereotype-land, shipping flat-pack DIY-assembly furniture to Norway looks a bit like coals to Newcastle....

Normally my job, I think. But as long as it's being taken care of I guess that's ok.

I was just hoping to be able to contextualise your opinions better, that's all. And better understand your approaches. For my sake. I enjoy reading your posts (bet I've missed a few) and am always curious to know more about how others work towards the making of a song. I am a lyricist, myself, with only the most stumbling intstrumental facility, but who enjoys the privilege of working with great composers and players. But, like you, there was a long preceding period where all I wrote caused me great personal discomfort and, indeed, it only seems during the last decade that I have achieved any significant worthwhile improvement. You and I are of similar vintage, also. I think it's a good subject - and one well worthy of discussion. I believe you are mistaken, thou tender heart. Unable to interpret John's comments on his behalf - still pondering his message - but he did make explicit that they were not directed at your work but stood as his own general perspective and approach. Nonetheless, I think it's great that he and I are willing to exchange views with you over aspects of song-writing - I welcome it - and wish for even more activity in this section of the boards. I don't think that willingness to engage need be interpreted as negativity or attack. I haven't really been following the 'plain English' idea - though a great fan of it in everyday prose - but have long been in pursuit of ideal simplicity of expression. However close my approach might get, it's always a huge sweat though - still hard work - I want it to sound easy and effortless, but it's always tough for me to find my way there. And about this rhyme thing.... I just flicked open my copy of "Lyrics by Oscar Hemmerstein II" handily at my desk and found this quote: "If one has fundamental things to say in a song, the rhyming becomes a question of deft balancing. A rhyme should be unassertive, never standing out too noticeably. It should, on the other hand, not be a rhyme heard in a hundred of other popular songs of the time, so familiar that the listener can anticipate it before it is sung. There should not be too many rhymes. In fact, a rhyme should appear only where it is absolutely demanded to keep the pattern of the music. If a listener is made rhyme-conscious, his interest may be diverted from the story of the song. If on the other hand, you keep him waiting for a rhyme, he is more likely to listen to the meaning of the words." So Oscar is in fundamental agreement with you (and so am I). And the illustration he offers is "Ol' Man River" (as a wee kid, I was early smitten with Paul Robeson) where it is only lines 8 and 10 of the opening refrain which rhyme. I think he is also in fundamental agreement with me where he says "a rhyme should appear only where it is absolutely demanded to keep the pattern of the music". My impression is that a personal discovery of yours about rhyming liberation was prompted by the happenstance of minor or dramatic changes in line-length and/or rhythm - whereas my own preferences for these same variations in line-length and/or rhythm, I think, may be more rooted in genre or stylistic idiom For me, these variations follow a melodic conception which I have learned from others whom I admire and which have led me to the position that the music is primary and forms the emotional contour served by the lyrics. And that's only one of the reasons why I wanted to know more about your own journey and genre-map maybe. So we may be arriving at the same place by different routes. Don't go thinking you're unwelcome. Warm Regards, Lazz

Hey Don. Your posts always makw me wish to know more about you. First, sorry this one has generated little discussion or response - especially given the unique mode of expression - but I have little to say about this subject myself. The constant issue I stumble with is the artificial separation of words and music we deal with here on these boards when a successful song depends on the perfect marriage of both - and achieving the right togetherness is a challenge which needs to be resolved anew each time. And for me, it is the essential arc of melodic rhythm which dictates where and when a rhyme is most appropriate and effective. Oh - I hear what you're saying ok - but can't go the whole hog on something like this: "No rhymes needed, because the lines where rhymes might appear were different lengths and/or different rhythmic patterns." ... because the implied causal connection is a tad artificial to me - I don't see why line-length need necessarily have any bearing on this at all. There are a few songs in my own catalogue which have no rhyme - but there is in each some other small mnemonic of repetition to support the flow - melodic and/or rhythmic - and I don't believe I could have ever achieved a happy resolution lyrically without exploiting those significant indicators. (this is definitely a rather prolix way of having little to say, isn't it ?) But this is where I am intrigued to know more about your experience and background - which is clearly considerable - are you lyricist or composer ? or both ? do you collaborate ? and how ? is your arena completely genre-specific ? (your posts all seem to speak 'country' to me) do you have any examples of where your own hard-won lessons are applied successfully ? Largely, I would stand next to John in suggesting that it is more beneficial first to study standard solutions to common problems - but I am interested to understand more of your owm journey though the craft. Aah -the reason I came back to this thread is due to the provocations it contains - which is a good thing, I think. Last night, for example, I lay waiting for sleep thinking of your hook statement. And disagreeing with it. So here I am. Life does rhyme. From the sins of the fathers to the complexities of cultural transmission. The repeating patterns of personal relationships. Histories large and small. There are echoes. Repeating patterns. Life rhymes loudly.

'Easy' is certainly not a word I'd choose for the haiku challenge. These are some favourites from my personal collection. I am author of none. I once had a dream: Big house, new car, big money. Now I play the bass. Money’s everything. Playing any gig that comes. Whores, we are all whores. The contractor calls. Months of Andrew Lloyd Webber. “Bird Lives” no longer! Pit orchestra gig; Days and nights become as one. I have no damned life. Bad intonation. Strings are sharp and reeds are flat. Brass too loud again. Squeaking and squawking, All eyes roll to the heavens. The clarinet speaks. Here’s the girl singer Stepping to the microphone. Pitch, time, all gone now. Gig is going well. Asshole requests “In the Mood.” I look at my watch. Great changes, good groove: A one-in-a-million gig. No singer. Yippee! “I can’t find my note,” Bemoans the confused singer. “Quit now,” we all pray. Rock drummer, lounge keys, Classically trained singer: Welcome to sub hell! That plate of hors d'oeuvres Cost more than we're getting paid. Think we underbid? My drummer helped me Count the syllables In this haiku. Checking out women. High stages, plunging necklines: Great combination. New Year's revelers: Here's hoping the stroke of twelve Sends you the hell home. Solo pianist, Freed from all constraints of form, Heedlessly mangles. Jazz nymphs crowd bandstand Offering carnal delights. My alarm clock rings. I'm sending a sub. But don't worry, he'll be fine; He's fresh from rehab.

smells like spam to me

Look out Janey !! You already own the copyright - if you wrote it, you own it, automatically. I think what you may be concerned about is some kind of official registration so ownership can be proven in the unlikely eventuality of a dispute. However, if you are serious, and this 'interest', is serious - then you need to seriously acquaint yourself with copyright and how it works in your territory. There is absolutely no substitute for knowing what's really going on yourself rather than believing in any of the commomly held myths and mythundrstandings and especially the mythrepresentations that others will greedily shovel in your direction until you sign everything over to them. Music companies are not to be trusted. Period. You have to keep your eyes wide open. Every step. Sadly - not all lawyers will do their greatest work on your behalf, either. The only one who really cares enough about Janey's business is Janey. So be very careful about abrogating those responsibilities. Now - let's presume that you are serious, and they are serious, and you are going to build a serious bankable future as a composer/songwriter. Here's what I recommend you do: 1. You will need to find a lawyer, most certainly. Just spend some serious time finding the right one to trust. Ask around, get recommendations, look for the right specialist, the right experience. Then have a chat with each and take your pick. Ideally you should also get explicit info about what their rates are (we never want nasty surprises) and you should be looking to get this first consultancy for free. Tell them what you want and where you're aiming, seek advice, take notes. 2. Set up your own publishing company. If there are any deals to be signed with any other music company, let it be one negotiated between your company and theirs. Agreements tend to become more flexible and more reasonable when they are dealing with a legally constituted company rather than a mere individual whom they are hoping to enslave. 3. Join the appropriate rights organisation - ASCAP or SOCAN or PRS/MCPS - depending on where you live. Join as composer AND publisher. Register your catalogue with them. (That last might be all you really need to do as far as registration goes - it depends where you live and where your market is - if the US is an arena, and there is ownership dispute, courts are shown to give significantly higher awards if the work was logged with their copyright office - so you have to evaluate its relevance) Line up those three things first and then you will be ready to consider signing something else. But not before - do you hear me ? NOT BEFORE The fact that you honestly pose this question: "should I wait until I'm signed and then have the music publisher or record company copyright them?" ... makes me worry for you like a lamb being prepared for slaughter. Listen - one of my own favourite song-writers and recording artists was a guy called Curtis Mayfield. He adopted the route I have sketched out for you, above, and took care of his own business. Now, some people say he could have been bigger and better known and more successful if he had made bigger deals with the bigger industry players. Then, one day at a gig, a lighting rig collapsed onto him and he was paralysed from the neck down. Could play no more. Had a machine to raise and lower his chest so he could breathe. (And managed to record a new album that way, too !!) Had a home. Had full time carers. Now he's dead - but you know the only way that fine soul was able to sustain such a life until the end was that he never sold or signed over ownership to any of his work. He kept control of his catalogue. That's how come he was able to own a house, own the machine that let him breathe, pay for care, medicine, groceries, support his family.... On the other hand, I know another person who shall remain nameless, with a very successful playing and writing career, who signed a deal with a big heavyweight music company many years back abetted by a registered attorney who clearly failed to represent his client's best interests and ended up locking him in to a totally one-sided agreement riddled with the most egregious Catch 22 clauses such that he is now - to use a heavy technical term - completely f*cked. Forever. And slim chance of escape. He didn't read or fully understand the terms at the time and just trusted his lawyer - who was obviously a total w*nker and didn't really care. We don't want that happening to you. Be like Curtis and take care of business. Good luck.

I think you mean 'gmamrar'.

Aulaclty the huamn mnid deos not eevn raed ervey wrod by istlef, but the eitnre lnie or setencne as a wlohe - so in turth I get a lttlie fkuced up wtih teihr emplaxe

A most amiably wild and wonderful man indeed - and conveniently close by your neck of the woods. A maverick ex-customs self-taught sculptor and performance artist. A major cultural institution. 87 years and still crazy. A personal inspiration. A great warm geezer. A weegee icon. Here's a bit of info And here he is - he has a special relationship with water - most of his materials are dragged from the Clyde. He also plays bass - well he used to - and ukelele. Get thee to Gaurrock for a cup o' tea with the lovely man. Dig his work in the garden - give him a CD - ask him for comment. All arts and culture centres and the like will recognise his name on your promo. That recognition may earn you a gig. Who knows......?

Hooray. For a wee bit more left-field appreciation - how about an approach to auld George Wylie ?

Been in the same situation more then once. My solution was to solicit comments from individuals with established names. Told 'em my intent was to gain quoteable quotes for promo. They were very helpful and it worked well. Pretty soon there were reviews.

Adrian Sherwood Great producer Because he does it live too

How many times am I allowed to say No No No No No No No No No No No No No It's a rip-off !!

My position, as the lyricist part of songwiting collaborations, is completely opposite. In my world, it is the music, the sound, which carries the song every time. That's the way I work. Having said that, though, Boff, none of my collaborators take a chainsaw or butcher's knife to my work.... Maybe a scalpel with permission, maybe they say 'I don't like that bit: that couplet could be better" (and they're always right), maybe they say 'the logic of the melody is asking for an extra couple of syllables here', or 'this is lovely so far but I the song would be improved by having an extra developing section'. They are always right. They are never fooling. I always say yes. No problem. And never say no. Your situation is totally different. Adopting your work for his own cut-and-paste re-creation seems to lumber towards abuse. That is not to say that playing with word collages can't be a fun and productive technique but personally, when I wrestle with a lyric, delivery of cut-and-paste fodder sure isn't my intention. I think I would be deeply offended by that. But I also think that if the result was wondrously convincing, I would be humbled easily and change my mind readily. That result is not happening here, is it ? Maybe you should try starting with the music first. And/or maybe he's just not the right guy for you.