Lazz

Songstuff critique I agree whole-heartedly For me, being able to critique the work of others educates me about how to improve my own. My personal creative development, such as it is, rests pretty much entirely I reckon on appreciation and analysis of the work of others – identifying exactly what it is I like, what it is that works so well, and how they pull it off. I have heard people suggest that too much study of others’ work constitutes an influence they would wish to avoid because it leads to becoming a copy-cat. But how else do we study and learn learn craft other than by attempting to emulate those we admire ? No-one comes fully-fledged to a tradition. Critique is as essential as it is unavoidable. What I get from performing critique is a constant sharpening of the tools for critiquing my own work and polishing ‘til it’s as brilliant as I can make it.

Thank you. And yes, you are right - I certainly was. But I am convinced anew by the coherence and articulacy of your response. (As well as the gentle rebukes of my fellow old gits here.) I fear we can always depend upon John for balance. And Steve for choosing unexploded prawn cocktail sandwiches over the pre-exploded alternative. Thanks for your understanding, Mud. I shall now shut up and go away. Whereabouts are you studying this course?

Guilty. (But I did say sorry to dear Mud, didn't I)

Hey Mud. Looks like you may have some starting ideas here - and good luck with the assignment. But I personally tend to regard this sort of request as cheating. Granted, I am a miserable grumpy git with old-fashioned perspectives on the value of educational process, but I really do believe that a university student should be learning to take complete responsibility for their own assignments. Pointless you being on the course if you negate its currency so readily. If you had some ideas or concept designs of your own and laid them out here in search of input and critique, that would be one thing, and perfectly acceptable as such, but - especially this being your first post and all - trying to get others to do the work for you just seems a little tacky to me. You are expected (by all your teachers as well as me) to be use your own imagination. Not to borrow ours. Sorry.

Smokin' In The Pit - Steps

Hi Tim, We may be talking here at some crossed porpoises due to my reading of the thread title as “promo” companies. However…. I have zilch experience and scant hard information regarding the companies you quote and their ilk. But I swear I recognise the scent of a very familiar and eminently sensible business model whereby the service-subscriber (you and me) is the guy who finances the operation for a result which is all but unquantifiable. Apparently, they offer an introductory platform alleging to promote you upwards into the open arms of the more big-time end of the business. But I have never been anywhere near persuaded of the efficacy of these agencies. Too much like a random raffle for poor suspicious little me. What would be your interest and hopes for slipping more money their way ? It is an objective scientific truth easily proven on fingers and toes that the only guaranteed and truly effective marketing tool we have at our disposal is performance and more performance and building your own fan-base. And, of course, once you’ve put in all that hard work of developing your own market, that’s when the oleaginous ones with their endless blue-sky promise of the great grail of ‘the deal’ will be all over you like necrotising fasciitis. Neither of us has yet reached that level of desirability. And here’s something else we share in common: You have a couple of CDs. I have a couple of labels. So it does seem after all we might ultimately be looking at exactly the same small set of problems: i.e. – getting the stuff out there and talked about and known about, creating a market for whatever it is we’ve got, getting it played, getting people interested enough to want more and be willing to pay for it, professional survival. That’s the bundle of activities I file under the rubric of promotion. Publicity. All that old brand-awareness bollocks. And that’s just a long way round to saying that the sort of on-line promo companies we are currently exploring are ones that service radio and selected niche media. The one that has just started to generate some potential results is RadioDirectX. They offer an established interface with international radio in general and specialist niche formats. Registered bona fide trade members have their own access to log-in and listen to sound-files and check out what’s new. Then they request station copies of whatever takes their fancy. We have a cool new CD that’s been listed for a week so far and has generated over forty requests from all over elsewhere. Many from Australia. Meaning I am now renewing approaches to Ozzie distributors who may hope to sell a few. If we ever start to get some real actual heavy radio action, that is. One immediately apparent benefit is that, filtered by this intermediary service, the radio interest is coming to us. Those who express interest have self-selected for your niche already. Specialist market growth is real sexy for me. Another benefit is that all those positive and appreciative responses we do get will be added to our own specialist data-base to be able to work the same result more direct and in-house. So at least I can feel we get something back already for our 500 bucks. And, as far as the cost of international postage is concerned, I am also researching and reaching out for the most efficient and industry-wide technologically acceptable way of sending out functional radio-friendly files. They tell me it’s the new radio way. Makes a lot of sense. Has to be something better than jiffy-bags. The downside is that the service costs money. So does mailing out free station copies. With no guarantee of broadcast result. And uncertain conversion of any radio-play into hard sales. As I said, it’s an experiment. We have a couple of others going, too. Not enough information yet. Judgement postponed. If I can ever give up having to driving taxi - that will be a very favourable sign.

Currently test-driving a couple of promo companies. Will let you know more when results are in.

Wow !!!

There have been changes in the shuffle since that was sketched out – but I seem to have lost track. I know nothing about CEMA or PGD – are they still happening as separate entities? Hasn’t the field of players shrunk even further since ? What’s happened to Thorn/EMI ? Are they gobbled up ? I have detail on only four monsters currently: Vivendi Bertelsman Sony Time-Warner And I think Sony & Bertelsman are now engaged in some relationship together somehow. What I consider also crucial is their involvements in other media other than record labels – their ownership and control of channels of communication and delivery of images, ideas and other content carries huge influence – radio, TV, film, networks, portals, books, electronics etc…. Time-Warner, for instance, have Mad Magazine and Amazon in their portfolio. There’s another illustration I have seen out there somewhere – but I’ve misplaced it – much cleaner and more up-to-date than the 2003 octopus chart. Please let me know if anyone stumbles across it.

Seems mispellings misrepresent what's going on here Donna Try these instead: key of E: I - bVII - bVI - bVII - I key of A: V - IV - bIII - IV - V key of D: II - I - bVII - I - II Anyway….. If it was in the Key of E, you'd have four sharps happening - F#, C# G#, and D#. That doesn't seem to fly compatibly with the other two triads. If it was the Key of A, then that'd give you three sharps - F#, C#, and G#. Still got problems of fit with the C triad. If it was the key of D, you’d have two sharps – F# and C#. Again – that would seem to knock the plain C triad out the play. But then you say you have no accidentals happening at all …. !! So the answer can be none of the above. My guess is that your tendency towards the Aeolian is the right way to think. That would be the tones of a Major scale but starting and finishing on the sixth degree. Using just the notes of C Major – as, with no accidentals, you appear to be doing – this means my money goes on the Key of A minor. But this would then suggest to me that the chords would be not as you gave ‘em, but rather more probably: E minor – D minor – C – D minor – E minor. And if I was personally spelling that more explicitly it would become: Em7b9 – Dm7 – CM7 – Dm7 – Em7b9 So that’s my guess – A minor. And if you sing around with the melody notes flapping and the note A is the one that ‘feels’ and ‘hears’ to you like it’s ‘home’, then I think we’ve maybe hit the bullseye.: And then the numbers you wrote would come right, of course - it would be V - IV - iii - IV - V Not that this necessarily has anything to do with the question, but it may turn up something useful and interesting: From my end of the pitch, it's always the third and seventh which define the chord. I would tend never waste time to actually voice either the root or the fifth anyway. (The fifth is just naturally implied by the root - and this is the bass-players' role - why would I want to duplicate it?) What this ends up meaning, if you're using three or four fingers to hold down strings, and two of them are holding the defining notes, is that you're free to add all kinds appropriate colour at will and choice - like the 6th(13th) or 4th(11th) or 9th. I particularly like voicing 4-7-3 or 7-3-6 because of the chunky sound of fourths. But I digress too far, perhaps..... If you are working in in A minor, then bass-player would be covering the A and the E notes and so you'd be free to use a G triad in place of your E triad. Try it out. And throw it away if it doesn't work. It also seems, from the deafness of this great distance, that you might even wield a Gb triad in place of the C triad. So then you could end up going Em - F7 - Gb7 - F7 - Em. The C triad and E minor triad are pretty interchangeable, too. So you could go G7 - F7 - Em - F7 - G7 also. Still essentially the same. Magic of substitutions Bottom line - if it sounds good to ear - then it's just perfect, Whatever key you call it. I dislike sharp keys

That may be what you and I personally prefer, John, but somehow I doubt that is really generally objectively true - 'though I guess it would revolve around how we were to define 'substance', it seems from my cynically jaundiced perspective that this can easily be an absent quality in loads of songs that become successful and popular hits. Not necessarily a bad thing per se - the nature of 'pop' leans towards the trivial and ephemeral. Smokey Robinson has always been a fond favourite writer of mine, for example, but something as sweet and perfect (in pop terms) as "Do You Love Me (now that I can dance)" hardly submits to the idea of 'substance'.

Defining it is elusive - but, like a lot of things, we can all recognise it when we hear it. My take is that a hook is effective becuse it sings out well. Take "Hey Jude" as a for instance: the title-hook is just two notes but a proud and natural melodic statement nonetheless; a minor third - everyone can sing it and identify it even if they don't really know the rest of the lyrics. It's the hook that's get 'em. Repetition helps punch it home. Ans if it makes sense as a 'summation' of some kind then that's a good plus, too. ("Hey Jude' is maybe nowhere the best example of those last two points but I still feel they enhance effectiveness and have to be a craft consideration.)

Hi John, Interesting issues – and ones generally experienced by all, I would imagine. Personally, I use two approaches to almost everything. First, I worry away at the problem. Then I leave it alone. Then I come back and pick at it like a juicy scab once more. Then I leave it alone again. This process is repeated at unpredictable intervals over an unspecified period of time until I grow weary of it all or become distracted by something even more promising. Eventually, something happens. I like to have a pot of tea and take my coat off. I also think it helps to have a little compendium of games for productively whiling away time spent leaving the problem alone. Bits of playtime can get the motors running in unexpected ways. Pick four or six favourite lyrics and limit yourself only to those same words and no others in building a composition. Or collect a rag-bag of metaphors for animals, flowers, colours, power, sports….. anything you want, and find ways of stitching them together. Take one metaphor and re-write it in the styles of different writers or of different genres. Hopefully, by the time I come back to worry at the problem/issue good chance is I at least have the benefit of a slightly freshened perspective. Means that every time I attack the recalcitrant piece of obstinacy I am coming from a slightly different angle and hence might catch the bastard more unawares. Well, that’s what I do when on a random hunt for song-writing significance. I know you just have to keep chipping away at it – but I reckon it helps to use exercises like this to help force yourself into changing positions and attitudes. This particular issue you described, for example.. “explore an idea quickly within the lyric, and very quickly I find myself repeating the same message to the extent that the idea seems used up before I have a second verse!” …. could become an asset instead of a problem. For some reason or other, that description of your plight reminded me of Tim Hardin. Do you remember his song “If I Were A Carpenter”? Each stanza is the same message wearing a different occupation. Three stanzas: three occupations: same message. And a bridge. Simple. There is nothing wrong with simple. Smokey Robinson wrote simple. So give yourself a diversionary task of writing it simple. Repetition is a good thing. Good things come in threes. You also say “I am editing too early” – that one is easy to deal with, I think. You could work on just not doing that. Sounds easy, I know – ‘cos then you say “The longer I leave it, the more lines I'm inclined to change” – so I say: “Do both!” This means you end up with a collection of drafts and re-writes that, if they yield naught but frustration, at least will surprise you with the unexpected nugget when you come to clearing up and throwing away. All that old nonsense is probably why I enjoy working to some kind of design brief. Complete freedom in creation often blinds me otherwise. But you have your own design brief already, I see: 1. It has to challange the listener 2. It has to challenge me 3. The listener has to identify with the emotion 4. The listener has to have room to "interpret" the lyric 5. The lyric has to either be about something new, take a fresh perspective, or express itself in an original way So then maybe you could entertain the idea of modifying your own brief and seeing how that changes your attitude. Why does it need to challenge the listener ? It’s not like the theatre where people have already made a decision to pay and come in and sit down ready to take what you throw at them. Very few people in my experience respond very positively to being ‘challenged’ by music or songs. I think there has to be something decidedly pleasurable involved for them to stick around and listen. My chosen #1 would be: “It has to engage the listener” – because once you’ve engaged them, you can play with ‘em, lie to ‘em, tell ‘em a story, make ‘em smile, even challenge ‘em if you really need to. As for challenging yourself, John – well that appears to be happening quite naturally, if I may say so. I mean, it’s all a bleedin’ challenge, innit? Squeezing the words out and beating them into shape. So that one is permanently taken care of. How about test-driving a different my #2 ? ….. “It has to please me”. Number 3 can’t be beat, though: “The listener has to identify with the emotion.” Apart from the melody and other musical bits – ‘cause the thread focus started out being just the verbals – this is all bundled up with number 1: engaging the listener and attempting a dance of seduction. It kinda picks up number 4 in its sweep, though, doesn’t it? Seems to me that once engagement takes place, and you have an ‘active’ listener, it’s their act of interpretation and making sense becomes the source of pleasure, consciously or otherwise, which leads them on and keeps them at it. This style of what you call ‘open writing’ sounds like it could use a rich separate discussion chapter all its own. But your number 5 is the terrorising bastard to me. That up-front expectation for fresh new originality each time would hold me frozen in the beam of its glare, and I’m thinking, ‘no wonder the poor geezer is having trouble finishing a lyric with the bar set so intimidatingly high’. So I would scrub that one altogether. My alternate approach is to measure my own success according to ‘authenticity’. And to concentrate on the fun play-time aspects in humble hope that innovation is a happy accidental consequence. None of it means shit to a tree without the music, however. Can’t get away from it. It’s the ultimate unspoken key to number 1, and 3 & 4, as you say: “For me, melody is the key, and lyrically that means rhythm and phrasing. They are the most important factor.” Luckily – I have someone else ably in charge of that department. But here’s another idea maybe: When you say “I am least attached to the actual sounds, more the type of sound that allows me to stick to rhythm.” this seems to suggest to me that the technique of “making a monster” could be worthwhile playing around with. Do you use that approach already? Sounds like you might. Dunno if any of that helps, but good luck. Make another pot of tea.

Hey Amanda, I thought this article may be of interest as it is written by someone who shares your point of view instead of being as disagreeable as me. Uh-oh! Here's another one from a different perspective. Predictably enough, I am not in complete agreement with either of these guys.

I was very disappointed with the reality of this link. My bucket remains empty. It's not funny.

Before we can usefully start belabouring any rhetorical what if, I think it’s necessary to get some realistic purchase on what is. This pesky little wrangle between Universal/Vivendi is not part of some insidiously orchestrated conspiracy to undermine or otherwise attack your regular rights as a consumer – whether or not they fall within the doctrine of ‘fair use’. It is about nailing protection for the rights of copyright-holders. But evidently you disregard whatever those rights may be. Right. They do. Those rights are not under attack in any way, though. What you presume to be your right is perhaps under attack. But perhaps these were only temporary opportunistic privileges. In many jursidictions, courts have agreed with you All publishers, all organisations, have certain liabilities and legal duties towards the rights of others. They just want what they reasonably believe is their due in law.

But this IS about copyright infringement, Amanda. "For all myspace knows, the user could have purchaced it." Purchasing a media format does not automatically confer the untrammeled right to broadcast it. You may think that it does, you may fervently wish that it was so, but it doesn't and isn't. "The user already had the video." But they do not own the broadcast rights. "Would it not then be the users right to upload it for view on his site?" Only if they own the rights to do that thing. If those rights in that content belong to someone else then, of course, there is a prima facie breach of the law. You may feel copyright is unjust insome way but, with respect, that doesn't make it go away. It is a legal fact. And one which myspace is well aware of. "they should be going after whom ever is distributing the copyrighted material." They are. "of course, they are not redistributing, selling, or altering the product." So, in your opinion, this awards them automatic rights for broadcast ? Currently, they are not selling product - in the future, I wager they will be. It may be in a small way, it may be big, but product is always altered. "how they got it should not be something myspace should have worry about." You say that - although I don't understand why - and you might even passionately believe it as a personal preference for one particular state of affairs over another but, clearly and obviously and very sensibly from an operational point of view. copyright is something that myspace are concerned with. They would be seriously dumb not to be. And they're not dumb at all. In fact, they've recently been spending a bundle of time and money over copyright issues in their hefty pursuit of some other guys who've developed software for us to take downloads from myspace. The ironies all round are absolutely delicious. Myspace is an openly flagrant copyright abuser, and yet they sue someone else on grounds of copyright. Admirable chutzpah ! Truth is, myspace are operating successfully by exploiting a grey area of intellectual property which is in a state of change. Now they have bigger money behind them, bigger lawyers, and more lobbying muscle. Behind the scenes and obviously unknown to most of us, numerous music-companies/copyright-holders have already cut a deal with them. But so far Universal (Universal/Vivendi - same company) is a hold-out. That's their decision. Maybe they're just holding out for better terms - which would be a difficult precedent for myspace. Maybe they have something else strategically in mind. Maybe we'll find out.

Bah. Humbug.

Oh I thought it was quite a salient point. But never mind. I'm more curious about the claim that it was Robert Johnson's. How could we know ? Is it proven ? Dunno. Never heard before of any guitar claiming to be that of Robert Johnson. Where has it been all this time ? Whose hands has it been passed through ? What's it's story ? Not even the current owner's identity is revealed. The sellers don't say where they got it from. This sort of information is normally central to what we generally understand as constituting 'provenance'. It's very hard to authenticate without any documented hostory. And all they offer in its place is an argument based on a photographic comparison. Nonetheless, the mythology of Johnson is a pretty powerful one so it still wouldn't surprise me too much if some avid fan and collector with spare cash to indulge a taste for legend was already haggling over the purchase. And personally I would love to feel it in my hands and see whether sound and touch were enough to convince myself it was a true artifact. I just thought it was a nice story to share- plus some very pretty pictures, too.

Oh I don't think so. Why would they wish to fake their own picture? Veracity is of course the core issue. The provenance is only absolutely convincing if you want to believe. And it is certainly not exhaustive by any means. Then again, they do seem a reasonably reputable dealership in arcana and other historical/cultural stuff. So it (the offer, the site, the business) seems real to me. The rest is up for grabs. Wonder who will buy. (Bet somebody does)

If I had a spare 6 million bucks, I guess I could be tempted by this particular old Gibson L1

Don't bother clicking the link - I don't believe the clip is accessible any more. But - if I still lived in London - I would definitely be booking tickets for this performer's retrospective at the Barbican. Do it if you have the chance. She's there until Oct 21st. Recommended.

Check your feet man !

I think there can be a lot of mileage in changing the 'pulse' for a tune. There are still a whole bunch of 'standards' in my gig-book, for instance, because people like to hear the familiar, but I still like to make 'em my own and so bend 'em accordingly. One of the characteristics of a 'good' tune, according to my personal criteria, is that it lends itself readily to such re-interpretations. But, of course, not everything succumbs willingly to such an approach. If at all. Never been able to find an effective re-arrangement for any of Elton John's material, for example. They seem pretty immutable to me and unsuitable for re-interpretation - or, at least, I've never found a way. Burton Cummings found a new way to perform his old Bachmann-Turner Overdrive hit 'You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet' as a a very convincing Sinatra-style strings and big-band lazy slow swing arrangement, though. And the Neville Brothers manage a highly danceable version of Leonard 'music-to-slash-your-wrists-by' Cohen's 'Bird On A Wire". In my own pad, I have a pretty up-tempo reggae arrangements of that same song plus the maybe even more unlikely 'You've Lost That Loving Feeling'. So it can definitely be pulled off. Of course, it always involves some re-harminisation or other. But that's at least half the fun. And with your jazz and classical chops you've already got a working vocabulary to do the job. Toughest part of the gig for me is coming up with the intitial starting idea for a re-working of a known piece. Common approach for me, and one that means I can can retain a lot of the original harmonic density (as well as expand it), is not to double the tempo, but to double the 'feel' instead. That's why I started out by calling it changing the 'pulse'. The bars go by at the same rate as before, but the rhythm churns out a double time feel. Startlingly pleasant things can happen. With re-harmonisation, you could even end up with a 'new' tune.

Slick!