Lazz

Sometimes words can go by pretty quickly. It's nowhere near ready for review yet - still mutating and growing - and will most probably require a bridge section for contrast and some kind of relief. But you are welcome to take a look at where it is so far in development. Yesterday - A Long Time Ago 1. When we were young The days were long Summers were endless And love was forever Changes were rung When things went wrong Some of it friendless In storm-driven weather And yet we cling to life With what we bring to life All we can know Trying to understand Doing the best we can Maybe it’s best to say That yesterday Was a long time ago 2. When we were grown Dreams were misplaced Taken by others Distracted by pleasure Out on our own Throwing the race Balance recovered Repentance and leisure Lust for the taste of life Knowing the waste of life On with the show Making the best of it Facing the rest of it But I have less to say Now yesterday Was a long time ago 3. When we are gone…. blah, blah, blah, blah....

Dunno if I have a favourite - I would have to check and see. Lately I haven't had a great deal of time to spare for lyric writing. Most of it done in my head as a fall asleep after tough days. I am managing to retain what I have done and continue the next night. Currently have three on the go in this fashion - and one of them has a rhyme-scheme which is a bit of a bastard. Might be dependent upon an excess of internal rhythmic rhymings (where we can get away with loads of half-rhymes anyway) and sound repetitions. Fun though. Scheme it is as follows: abcd abcd ee f gg hh f Luckily, I fall asleep reasonably quickly.

It is obviously a good topic, Al - and a thread I have enjoyed following - even if it's ostensibly something of a non-issue for me. I am much less interested in candour than in the sound of words and rhythms colliding and bouncing effectively. I am happy if I can make something that is authentically convincing - more craft than confessional - which can then become truthful in performance. Seems I have only one set of lyrics which grew direct from personal circumstance - and it didn't necessarily go down with complete approval here. But I personally like it still (as do my associates and, especially, my wife) for reasons of rhythm and effectiveness as well as the way it renders our common (?) frustrations slightly ridiculous.

Sounds like exactly the need that Mudchild was looking to fill.

Billy Joel - yes ! And quite right, too. How could we have left him off the list ? The guy is a real pro and a consumate musician. First time I saw him was when he was touring solo - a double bill with Tom Waits. That may sound an unlikely pairing - but it worked perfectly. Early days way back before either were much known. They were both just great. Still have a lot of time for Billy Joel and can't figure out why people choose to diss the guy. To me his detractors can have no notion or appreciation of sheer craft.

Hi Mike. I am also a self taught musoid geezer - well, I had a couple of priceless lessons in harmony and theory and continuous on-the-gog learning. But I am a much more focussed lyricist as a result. I agree about the difference in form twixt verse and song-lyrics - each a horse of vastly differing kidney. Outside of song-forms, I stick to doggerel myself - purely for laughs. 1. When you write lyrics do you have some form of music or rythm in your head while you're writing? Yes, I most certainly do. 2. When we critique here, should we be critiqing the poetic qualities of the lyrics or the rythmic qualities or both? I think it should definitely be both. How can they exist apart ? 3. If rythm is to be critiqued, when a note is meant to be held for a certain count, how do we indicate this? You don't. Or shouldn't need to. If I somehow have a song-lyric that is in a fit state to be passed across to a musical collaborator, the one thing I am not going to do is give them any instructions or hints about my own pedestrian tune and groove ideas. Theirs are so much better than I could ever imagine - that's why I work with 'em - because they are great at what they do - so why should I interfere with how they do it.. The rhythm is something else, though - the rhythm of language should speak out on it's own terms - it sure has to speak to my collaborators. And it should have been written specifically with that essential sense of 'singability' in your mind all the time.

No before this Hari. Thanks. How el diablo are you ?

Well done. It's good to have the union in your corner on things like this. Their power and influence has diminished considerably, but at least they still retain much in broadcast media. A terrific source of help and info in all areas of work. The other associated benefit is their ability to recommend sources of legal advice and it is my experience that, at least in the UK, entertainment lawyers are often keen to give their first consultation free in hopes that you will be successful and give them repeat business. Did you get around to the other important step of joining PRS/MCPS yet. They are really helpful people also. Please consider accepting my apologies for tone and attitude - I haa been struggling with contractual hassles of my own and suffering my own frustrations over small choice and submission to "force majeure". What a dick, eh.

Years back, when still in the UK, a friend developed a special unit of electrickery called 'Frankenstein' which would work somehow exactly like that - creating sonic ambiguities which the brain/ear was forced to resolve. Very clever - but tricky to use effectively because it was so unexpected and disturbing. Facing the stereo speakers, it could make you believe that sounds were coming from behind you. Wierd.

OUCH !!

Mornington Crescent !!!

Nope - I have just had to read and understand a lot to find my way around and stay alive. Took law as part of a degree option because I knew I was an ignoramus. So I got a fundamental basis and found how to handle the library. The rest is just keeping abreast of issues and cases. Helps if you are interested and enjoy it, also. The title 'Legal Eagle' was awarded anonymously by some mysterious SongStuff gremlin. I have recently been trying to change it to the more appropriate and correct "grumpy miserable old git" but am not having any techno-luck.

Like-wise. Nice hat !!

Indeed - that's the next pertinent question. And the answer as I see it is a lot of 'maybe': Maybe if they offer effective organisation and expertise and a pr department that will substantially increase sales and distribution and promotion and marketing... Maybe - now you have a position of some strength - and they really want you - if you can schedule such goals and targets realistically as part of the agreement... Maybe if they coommit to investment in performance and exposure and ancilliary exploitation to a level you couldn't possible handle independently... then Maybe it's worthwhile evaluating the benefits and compromises.

In the current climate for labels - the ONLY guaranteed method is to stay focused on building your own audience and fan-base. Then they'll be all over you with desperate greed and hunger. Schmoozing gets people to know who you are. But it's a market that makes 'em want you. They don't really care how good you are or what you sound like - just how much money they can possibly make.

No - not really. "In the style of music that I do, electro, it is very common for the artist to license the pertinent tracks" What does the genre have to do with anything ? A licensing deal does not automatically preclude mechanicals. Mechanicals are statutory - why would you need to negotiate it after the first pressing ? So I guess what you do is 'waive' the mechanicals. If, instead of calling it a "mechanical licensing agreement", you had called it a "NO-mechanical licensing agreement", then we would have had a clearer picture of what you were going on about. "I still make my performance/publishing royalties." With all due respect = that sounds remarkably optimistic: It presumes that every place your tracks get heard pays their performance/broadcast license, and reports efficiently, and that the distributing organisation's formula is serving you well rather than Sir Paul McC. Why would you give up your mechanicals? That makes no sense at all. But anyway - that's not what we're talking about in this case, is it? "They want a recording agreement for this album, that is perpetual. Why would this be?" Because they are operating according to principles of self-interest, and they consider they can get away with it. Clearly - you are the ownert of your own masters. So this should be a licensing/distribution deal. But I said that before (did you notice?) Uh-oh...... wait a minute. You say you handed over tracks that were not masters ? You gave 'em stuff and you don't even have an agreement yet ? Oh gee ... this is making less sense the further we get into it. I can hardly believe it. What the blazes do you think you're doing ? It's pretty obvious from your questions that you didn't read or comprehend what I took trouble to spell out previously. Neither did you take me up on my kind offer to go through the issues with you over the 'phone. I can offer no more comment when what's going on is kept so unclear . No more free advice - it clearly has no value for you. I am going to withdraw from this discussion right now.

Somebody please tell him to shut up.

Hey Rudi Are you saying those songs truly represent Newman's own opinions ?

Digital tuners have earned their place in the life of a busy person who needs to tune up quickly without making any noise because, for example, they are already on stage in the middle of something or waiting for the downbeat. But that's not you. Pitch pipes are very good and very useful. Unlike a digital tuner - you have to hear the notes This means you're subconsciously working on tuning your inner ear every time you tune your guitar. And that is an excellent thing to do. The Big Bad Nightwolf didn't think about that only because it was stuff he did long ago and forgot the value.

CH4 needs to be dealing with copyright owners You say you were co-writer - how can you even contemplate signing this contract without consulting the other copyright holder/s ? You'll never get away with it. You say "Obviously won't make money or anything" - but that's bollocks - did you not read clause 5 ? Of course they have to pay money. Why should they not ? But you need to be a member of PRS to collect under their agreements. Clause 5 also says you "warrant that you are not a member of MCPS" - I don't understand why. PRS/MCPS are joined at the hip - you would need to be a member of both. And PPL also. Why am I bothering to tell you this if you don't really own the copyright ? Bet you're not even an MU member are you ?

Hey Dainis. Good to meet you. I also support the idea of giving people what they need – but only if they want it. So I’d never really thought in terms of ‘how are you going to sell it?’, figuring that if people are really interested, they would take the trouble to find out, and ask. But I take the point. When I wrote of ‘my own functional preferences’, when I wrote that contemporary popular useage is ‘cripplingly counter-productive and limiting’, I was simply trying to say, just like you, that there is a better way – that ultimately a songwriter is ‘better-off’ using the conventional forms rather than making up new and redundant terms - in much the same way that someone who harbours serious ambitions about a career as a guitarist is going to be clearly better-off studying music rather than limiting themselves to tablature. For a pure hobbyist in any field, personal satisfaction and happiness is the sole value and arbiter, and quite right too, but for a person with a career in mind, then in terms of any goals and ambitions, some tools are just more useful than others – like, for example, being able to write your songs down. Rudi – knowing what it is we are trying to say was exactly the issue. My thoughts on this were initially provoked by a much earlier comment from John about the need for language terms with which to discuss the activity and process of songwriting, and my taking notice of the fact that although such a shared language exists and is happily in productive use already, it still seems there are a lot of people with songwriting ambitions who are ignorant about such things. My intent in being willing to share information.about the established terminology is, as I stated above, “to aid those who. like me, are lyricists, to write in ways that are 'muso-friendly' so that a music writer can get a better handle and do a better job with their words.” For, if you are a lyricist wishing to collaborate with a literate musician – one who knows how to write it down – you are going to be much better-off speaking and writing in the language they understand. Couple of other things for Dainis: First, at my personal end of the music business there is definitely a ‘drive’ for ‘quality’ in song-writing. Secondly – this overalls-jumpsuit translation seems pretty provocative. One term has roots in regular working-man’s life, while the other has roots in the job of being an air-man. I’m not ready for German construction to be quite so unexpectedly loose. I would like to understand more about how that translation worked in this particular case. .

Thanks a lot John - but the permissions needed should be from Little Bobby Zimmerman and Big Joe Turner I have sent a PM to the other inestimable John - Mr Moxey - with my starting outline sketch. But here's some of my immediate comments on basic terminology: Song Structure Terminology The terminology of songwriting has become laden with contradictions perhaps due to the tendency of current 'pop' writers to develop their styles, and the language they use to talk about them, with little or no regard to the established traditions and accumulated history of their chosen craft and art. There is not necessarily any right or wrong here – although I clearly have my own functional preferences – simply the recommendation that it is necessary to be able to recognise and identify these differences in meaning. Such notions as ‘verse’ or ‘chorus’, for example, will generally represent one quite specific thing to the regular professional jobbing musician, yet apparently mean something completely different to a budding writer of contemporary ‘pop’ songs. Verse The second generation of Tin Pan Alley songwriters who were involved with the creation of an American musical theatre regularly adopted the strategy of writing a kind of ‘set-up’, or introduction, for a song – in order to help place it within the dramatic context of the complete staged theatrical piece of which the song was a part. Numerous ‘standards’ from the ‘Great American Songbook’ originally possessed such introductory verses – even though they may often be omitted from modern performances of the individual songs. (Notable exceptions to this practice include Billy Strayhorn’s classic ‘Lush Life’, where the verse is so essential to the meaning and story of the song that to perform the number without it has become pretty much inconceivable.) It is this ‘set-up’ section which is identified amongst traditional jobbing musicians as the ‘verse’. In talking about more contemporary ‘pop’ music, however, it has generally become common practice for a ‘verse’ to correspond roughly with the idea of a poetic stanza. God knows why - can't ask cos I don't believe - they use it in this manner. But I don't believe this useage is very helpful or productive and just put it down to ignorance. Chorus Similarly, amongst the community of professional jobbing players, the term ‘chorus’ is used to refer to one complete statement of the base structure of a tune – excluding that introductory ‘verse’, if it has one. Vide – the Wikipedia entry under ‘Thirty-two-bar form’ where Richard Middleton is quoted as saying that, in this form. “the musical structure of each chorus is made up of four eight-bar sections” (Studying Popular Music. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1990, page 46). That is, the ‘chorus’ represents one complete statement of 32 bars. In talking about more contemporary ‘pop’ music, however, it has again become general common practice for the term ‘chorus’ to be used in reference to one readily identifiable section of a song which is repeated melodically, lyrically and harmonically at regular intervals throughout its performance. In this context, the use of the term ‘chorus’ may often loosely correspond with the idea of a ‘refrain’. Refrain The ‘refrain’ is a structurally much looser term which refers to that part of a song which is generally most easily recalled by the listening audience because of its repetition during performance. Songwriters will often consciously strive to achieve this status for the ‘hook’ part of a composition. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind or Hi-ho silver lining, every where you go …. etcetera In the usual clumsy terminology of popular music, these two above examples – which should more properly and usefully be called ‘the refrain’ of the song – seem generally and wrongly identified as ‘the chorus’. But they are not the chorus – they are the refrain in each case.

This is following up an initial outbreak of discussion with John that threatened to hi-jack a thread of Matwein's. It concerns something I am currently writing - and it is becoming quite lengthy already. This particular piece in the works was stimulated by John's notion (in "Lyrics Critique For Songwriters") of introducing a 'basic vocabulary and further justification of the same'. It is turning into quite a lengthy beast, though, revolving around conversations and considerations of structures and forms. It does NOT look at anything like selecting a title, the fundamentals of rhyme, song plot development, melody writing, harmony writing or chord progressions - but is intended to aid those who. like me, are lyricists, to write in ways that are 'muso-friendly' so that a music writer can get a better handle and do a better job with their words. It starts with the core idea of repetition - and then moves on to the two basic food-groups of 16-bar and 12-bar forms before edging along to multi-part structures. The two well-known examples I use to illustrate those two starting basic food-groups are "Blowing In The Wind" and "Flip, Flop, and Fly" - for which I need permission before publication. Subsequent examples are mostly from my own work, but there are a few other permissions needed also. The sub-text of the section on the 16-bar and 12-bar forms involves the identification of 'refrain' and a demolition of terms like 'verse' and 'chorus' as they are commonly used today in our threads here and other pop forums. My intention in this is simply to introduce an awareness of what those terms 'really' mean in the already established traditions of songwriting so that the budding lyricist can communicate more effectively and productively with a pro musical collaborator who would be used to working with such long established more specific terminology. Between me and you, John - and everybody else who reads this - the flagrant mis-use of the basic terms drives me up the wall on quite a regular basis - 'though I try not to let it show too much. Contemporary useage is cripplingly counter-productive and limiting, and I would like to get rid of it altogether, but have little hope of succeeding. I know. It seems like re-inventing the wheel for no good purpose when the old one works perfectly and the new one is seriously broken. And it also demonstrates a wilful and disrespectful ignorance of tradition and form. There - I've said it. Just like an old fart. But I am a geezer who recognises that nobody can possibly move forward in any area of creative endeavour without a decent understanding of what went before. The question is - Is anybody really interested ? I know they have to be for the courses I likely get to contribute to next year - 'cos it's worth credits. But what about here ? Am I wasting my time ? Does anybody care ? Would it have any importance to anyone here at all ?

Absolutely no idea what you could possibly mean. Please explain

He is. And I am predictable.