Lazz

Here's one of mine.... This song is 93 years old. Marisa Monte is much younger. "Carinhoso" (written by Pixinguinha around 1916/17) performed by Marisa Monte and Paulinho da Viola.

Oh right.... I was wondering how the publisher got involved in the first place. I'll send you an e-mail. I'm happy and complimented that you enjoy our work. We think your drummer, Kelby MacNayr, is very special indeed. Maybe if the Shorter falls flat on its back you might consider doing a Coleman-Lazzerini tune instead. We'll get my people to talk to your people. .

What a strange and totally irrelevant thing for him to say: I mean, I would consider it an honour to have the spaceman accept my lyrics also, but I don't see where the Beatles come into it. A stupid comparison offering no illumination. New lyrics would require permission from the composer - which seems highly unlikely in the case of the Beatles - whereas Wayne has given you the ok - which is all you need. The publisher does not own those moral rights, and can't own those moral rights, all they own are the economic rights, so as long as they get paid for use they have no complaint. I know plenty of people who have recorded Shorter tunes and none have been required to seek permission or sign a contract. All they do is pay the mechanicals and get it pressed. We have to pay those mechanicals before the manufacturer will process your order anyway. So that's what you do. Pay the rights holder 50% for use of the composition via CMRRA, and mark yourself down nominally and rightfully as lyricist for the other half. As far as I can see, you need no further communication with the publisher. You certainly don't need a contract with them. I take note of the fact that you say they have suggested this - which suggests to me they may not have come right out and overtly stated it as fact. Now, I am not clear on where US law stands on such matters but, in the jurisdiction with which I have the greatest familiarity, attempts to explicitly mislead a person about what the law is may constitute a criminal offence. So maybe that explains why it's a suggestion rather than a simple statement of fact. But I think they're just trying to muscle you with the usual music business goal of having the rights to everything, everywhere, forever. What I would do is just go ahead legitimately as above and ignore the publisher to death. I can't imagine they would have the time to waste on small stuff as long as they've been paid. And if they're dumb enough to make a fuss - then milk the controversy for all the publicity you can get. I don't know if they have any expertise in these areas at U.Vic, but the only other person I know of who may be willing to give you a straight, authoritative, and qualified legal reading is Michael Geist. You could write to him at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. I won't publish it openly here, but his e-mail isn't at all difficult to find. .

It seems to me first that it falls clearly within the composer's moral rights to decide whether your use is acceptable or not. And moral rights can never be sold or transferred - they remain with the creator - nothing to do with the publisher. So it seems to me secondly that the publisher is just trying it on as a matter of course. My immediate personal response would be to tell them to bugger off. I presume you are a SOCAN member - so give Terry a call (1-800-937-6226), run the situation by him, and see what he has to say. But I really don't think you ever need a high priced lawyer to argue and negotiate on your behalf about something with as little return and reward as one single track on a small-time jazz CD that we can probably guarantee won't recoup recording and manufacturing costs. That simply wouldn't make any sense, would it ? Besides, you already have the advice of entertainment lawyers - "don't sign". Good advice, I think. What's the name of the tune? .

Yay & Yowzer !!!

Many people already had this very same idea. But it always involved problems. First of all - it has to become a serious business and be working 24/7. And I have lost count of all the fabulously well-equipped facilities which have closed down because of the steep decline in demand. As the rubric of this thread implies - things have changed. .

If anyone is interested in this stuff: http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/news/research/Documents/Economic%20Insight%2020%20web.pdf . .

Hi Tom. It is a good bet that you'll never get authoritative info from the internet. Have you never thought of 'phoning ASCAP and having a chat about all this ? They will know the answers. And you're a member. Simple. Good luck. .

Great news, Joe. Congratulations ! Now you can not only keep the wolf from the door for a while, but toss the brute an occasional steak too.

Interesting. Different worlds, different media, Rob. I have read nothing but scathing reviews for this - even though they may be complimentary towards Lenny di Crappio - who I personally find unconvincing as box-office. .

I was thinking only about what Goodman was talking about in his interview - being locked up with a big-deal producer for eight months - which he says very few bands are able to accommodate these days. Can't complain about that, either - but I'm stuffed if I can think of an example. Bad news. I know you're not alone here - not that it helps in coping with the practical experience of suffering - but you ain't alone. Hope the therapist is good and you can manage a way to channel issues productively. Good luck. .

"But is it worth it to do it for just ten minutes? " I would think not. It smacks of poor ill-informed organisation and seems well worth steering clear of. If you're working the stage and P.A. already and having to deal with unrealistic turn-arounds and set-up times it hardly seems worthwhile attempting performance yourself under such shabby circumstances. Garibaldi wouldn't have stood for it. Good luck. You'll need it.

I can’t quite grasp your point(s), Graham. Goodman does indeed appear to be saying that complicated experimental recording has become less likely because so few projects can justify that kind of big budget anymore – his estimation (as quoted) is that there are maybe seven current bands who can. But that sad budget situation is clearly the result of the savage sales dip and nothing to do with my small attempt to look on the bright side and envision the possibility of more chances for players who don’t need eight months to make a record. I’ve been involved with complex multi-track recording (that some folk have called ‘experimental’), and I presume that you have, too – yet did either of us take anything near eight months to do it ? I think not. My guess is that both of us work/worked within much more realistic and practical constraints. My understanding also is that plenty of complex experimental multi-tracking takes place in people’s bedrooms these days instead of hiring outside studios. I’ve also worked with orchestras and, as you say, can’t afford that nonsense anymore due to the self-evident reasons in Goodman’s analysis. Yet, again, recording took nothing like eight months – five days tops from down-beat to mastering. I also write musical scores (I call it ‘arranging’) while not being able to afford an orchestra, and focus on 4 to 8 instruments – because of limits to my musical conception (I’m still learning) as well as fiscal restraints. Yet with modern technology and software, anyone with a broader true orchestral vision than mine can now write full scores and hear them played back on a computer without the bother of hiring real players. So, while historically it was true that scoring for an orchestra was generally limited to those who could get regular access to one, that doesn’t seem to be the case in our modern age at all. And we do have Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, don’t we? From about 45 years ago. When they didn’t have all the techno-wizardry available to us today. And that took much less than eight months also. That eight month scenario as a legitimate and reasonable expectation is a foreign country to me. As I presume it is also for you. The changes in the music business all trickle down from changes in cash-flow, it seems to me. And I also presume that this has kicked you in the bollocks as hard as it has hit me and everyone else I know. The only faint glimmer of positivity which struck me upon reading the interview was that these monetary restrictions may mean there is a chance we could end up with better music made by better musicians who don’t need eight months to figure out what they were doing in the studio. What’s the problem with that ? On a different note – this being under the doctor’s knife.............., was that a metaphor, or do you have some health issues we should be worrying about ? .

Yup. That Bronfmann book looks very interesting indeed. One of the most interesting and provocative things in the interview for me, however, is where the author, Fred Goodman, bemoans how few bands can afford to to make records which "investigate what you can do in a studio", and that "sophisticated" records will likely disappear because of cost: the fact is, you can’t justify the cost anymore for any band who really wants to look inside its soul and go live with a producer for eight months. U2 can do it, The Red Hot Chili Peppers and maybe five other bands. I mean, who can do this? That strikes me as weird and funny. I mean, who would need to lock themselves up with a producer for eight months ? Dare I suggest it might be because they actually don't have any first idea what they should be doing ? (Maybe that's what Goodman truly means with the line "investigate what you can do in a studio" - it's because they already ran out of idea before they started). I dunno. I read these things and sometimes feel I come from a different planet. Grinch grinch grumble grumble. But maybe the demise of that odd reality could mean that the world of recording will have more functional room again for players who can do the business and be in and out inside 48 hours. . .

I'm still uncertain whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. In many ways, despite being in a Spotify-free territory, I viewed their model as a glimpse of a future where downloads go the way of the CD - but now I am not so sure I like the way they operate: remember that Swedish superstar,Magnus Uggla complained that after six months he'd only earned "what a mediocre busker could earn in a day", and that after their artists had been streamed over 55,000 times Norwegian label Junior Racing had earned a staggering $3.00 in payments - yes, that's right, THREE BUCKS !! From an artist point of view (perhaps especially for the indie sector) there seems to be something a little smelly about Spotify. .

Depends whose stuff you're interested in. Artists individually and regularly make lead-sheets available for download direct from their own web-sites. I just snaffled a couple from John Scofield and from Antonio Carlos Jobim that way. Then there are on-line retailers like http://www.musicdispatch.com/ or, as his holiness intimated above, publisher sites like http://www.halleonard.com/?pro=608, where you can check out their stock somewhat and they will mail stuff out I think googlage should kick back a lot of similar likelihoods. Being myself at some distance from the technological cutting edge - all I possess is a Facebook page where people can at least listen to what we've got. Then, if anyone wants a lead-sheet, all they need to do is ask, and we send them a PDF. They don't actually buy it - but we actively seek interest from a small field of people who are likely to be recording and performing, so mechanicals and performance royalties are what we're after. Eventually I'll get back round to having a dedicated site again to help with the job. .

And so we're pretty much full circle back to where we started with the linked article. PRS-MCPS is the UK performing rights organisation, while GEMA does the job in Germany and KODA in Denmark. For CDs, the songwriters royalty is known as ‘mechanicals’ and has to be dealt with upfront before you can manufacture the product. (Unless you are one of the controlling ‘big-boys’ who are allowed to pay mechanicals only on units sold – or if you own your own pressing plant and can get away with cheating on form filing) For non-physical product like MP3s in the digital universe, accounting and control becomes murkier and more open to abuse – especially where business models like the flat-fee subscription for unlimited downloads (TDC’s ‘all-you-can-eat’ set-up, for instance) aren’t ready to pay anything until they are convinced they can turn a profit – which makes a lot of sense from their point of view, but gives the song creators short shrift. The delivery or streaming models like YouTube and Spotify – which make more or less broadcast use of music – argue for some exemption because of their strategic promotional and marketing role (which the big labels are keen on supporting) and hence prefer an overall blanket annual lump sum – of which the labels are claiming the lion’s share, leaving even less for songwriters and their publishers. And that’s where the argument is – as reported in the linked article. The collection agencies wish for an arrangement which is arguably fairer - something more reasonably and practically related to revenue and growth – while the businesses naturally want to muscle them into getting as little as possible. In the UK last year, the big stand-off was between YouTube and PRS. During this scrap, the majors (who all have vested interests in YouTube, remember) pulled highly popular stuff from YouTube because of the lack of an agreement between these parties and in doing so successfully painted PRS as the bad guy, the party-pooper out to spoil the fun of everyone in the YouTube generation. (Gee – even here at Songstuff – a site ostensibly about songwriting – there was strong anti-PRS sentiment.) PRS caved-in as a result and accepted a secret lump-sum deal. Both KODA and GEMA, however, are standing their ground. They want an equitable arrangement unfettered by non-disclosure agreements. As a songwriter, I support them in this. .

Hello blu, I guess the garden must belong to you, but are the graduations yours or those of your children? they are spending less time searching and more time promoting a much smaller pool of musical "product". If it’s safe to presume that ‘they’ refers to ‘labels’, it has been a truth for a long time that they don’t ‘search’ at all much anymore. Traditional mythical A&R is long gone. They largely favour introductions through networks of established industry contacts. And their sales resources get slung behind whatever project shows signs of creating a return. The mud-pie process still rules: i.e. a handful of projects are slung against the wall and whichever achieves the greatest adherence gets more of the push than the others. Way back when I was once trying to deal with Island, for example, I witnessed how, when there was a release by a top band of the time called ‘Frankie Goes To Hollywood’, everything else on their desk just fell by the wayside and was ignored to death. So you’re right: they focus on a small pool. But they always have – their priorities are strictly governed by numbers. You’re right, too, about the sheer volume of music. The availability and distribution of bedroom technologies means that these days anyone can produce music product – so everyone does, pretty much, to the extent that regular distributors and retailers, predominantly now turned to dust, instead of looking at 300 releases per week, were having to deal with 3,000. The numbers today must be even greater. I’ve lost count. But whether this then makes the terrain “less cost-effective for the music marketers and distributor” turns out to be quite a moot point. Chris Anderson’s theory of the Long Tail, for example, an established article of faith amongst the techno-savants, claims that our culture and economy is increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of 'hits' and that the future of e-business is selling less of more – because the digital world makes it cost-effective to do so. However - Will Page, Chief Economist for the UK’s royalty collections agency the MCPS-PRS Alliance, together with colleague Gary Eggleton and MBlox founder Andrew Bud, from an analysis of real digital music sales data gathered over 12 months from a catalogue of 13m songs, discovered that 85% of the albums available on-line still failed to sell one single copy and that approximately 80% of sales revenue came from just 52,000 tracks – the ‘hits’ which power the industry – a mere 0.4% of the total number of tracks available. So the marketing, promotion and distribution resources, following our established business mud-pie principles, quite naturally retains its sensibly narrow focus on those few bits of stuff that are generating good numbers and kicking back profits. But how does that effect whether payment is made for use of a songwriter’s work? To be continued….

That's unintentionally very funny, Mike. Like saying "Paul and McCartney". Oscar Hammerstein was a lyricist - and a damn great one - also mentor and de facto foster father to Steve Sondheim. He is a good case in point, though: Jerome Kern was an early composer-collaborator of his who would hand Oscar finished and complete pieces in which would not allow a single note to be changed. Although many of their songs justifiably became part of the 'Great American Songbook' and were (and still are) constantly re-interpreted as 'standards', he absolutely detested any and all changes to what he had originally scored. A real stickler and task-master with whom Oscar nonetheless thrived on a rigorous music-first basis. Their first project was "Showboat" - which, despite few if any here being at all interested in the form, was a revolutionary landmark of musical theatre. Later on, when Lorenz Hart become too messed up to function, Oscar would replace him as partner of composer Richard Rodgers. Rodgers was much more flexible and accommodating than Kern and, to Oscar's surprise, expected the lyrics to come first. Oscar learned rigour and discipline from Kern. He also learned about the essential musicality in language and structure which equipped him to provide such eminently productive libretti for Rodgers. The first Rodgers & Hammerstein collaboration was "Oklahoma" - another significant milestone in musical theatre. Oscar is well worth taking a good look at. "Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II" is essential reading - borrow it from the library. His introduction to the book, 'Notes on Lyrics', is acknowledged as a classic text - make yourself a photocopy to keep. .

Different gig to that of a singer, John. Heckling is part of their gig. Different for a singer. I remember being heckled once by a guy at a club - very uncomfortable and embarrassing - no idea what to do. Some time later at the theatre, I serendipitously discovered the man on-stage as an actor. Still nursing a grievance, I stood up and gave it to him good. Quid pro quo. Still very uncomfortable and embarrassing - ruined the show for everybody else. There has to be a better way - more dignified and gracious. .

AHA !! This seems to confirm my early suspicion that you failed to read or comprehend the story. This is NOT about a "largely a catfight between equally greedy entities". This is about songwriters' struggle with the dominant forces. So I believe you misread the real roll-call of combatants and chose instead to go with the play-book of myth. You are right that the 'majors' dominate the music marketplace. It's the nature of their enterprise. Their wider networks of corporate relationships involve them in an enormous bunch of other stuff as well which is worthwhile if not essential to be aware of. The structure and imperatives of international monopoly capitalism have quite naturally driven them to assume an interest in the new-media delivery systems. From their point of view, you know it makes sense, it adds up. So there is no real scrap between the majors and speculative technical innovations like Spotify or MOG or TDC or YouTube. The majors are comfy corporate bedfellows with each of them. It is the associations representing songwriters which have been engaging with the pressures from these combined forces. That's where the fight is. Much more David and Goliath than "equally greedy entities", I think. Yes - if I may - perhaps the general nuance of tone which appeared to uncritically reiterate the essence of ideological mantras re the internet as saviour delivered with the swagger of 'serve-you right' insouciance like this: I think you express yourself very ably - but what you had to say wasn't really much anything to do with the issues in the story to which I linked. .

Don't worry about it, blu. No big deal at all. I do completely understand you had no intent for insult - honestly I do - but in my flippant style rendered ambiguous by my rejection of the 'orrible emoticon, as John quickly spotted, I chose to take it personally purely for effect and provocation. By posting the link I was just passing along some news about the battles over royalty. My hope in responding to your opinion of it was to suggest with levity dry as martini that the story could more properly be seen as about us little guys getting shafted by the heroic innovations of new media in which the monopoly of big guys already maintains a vested pecuniary interest such that whichever way the juice ends up getting squeezed the flow will stay largely unidirectional. And their current business model only works most effectively with the lowest of usage royalties - i.e. by giving us little guys at the end of the line even less. Our influence on these outcomes – other than through representations from stakeholders ‘professional organizations – is pretty much zilch/zip/nada. Me and others like me, we have little realistic choice other than play these cards as they are being dealt and try to read the game ahead as best we can. So I have to tell you, as long as it helps raise a smile, about this wild Charles Bronson fantasy which my tiny mind conjures more and more whenever I'm handed yet more unctuous platitudes from the book of nouveau-teknik doctrines that John encapsulated so perfectly as ""this is the way it is, get used to it". This movie sees me screaming "F*ck you!" at the offenders while rendering the hardest kick I can possibly muster to their tenderest most personal parts so that I can finally stand over them gloating with my reflection of their own mantra: "This is the way it is, punk. Get used to it". On the one hand there are self-serving myths about how the music world turns. On the other hand there are front-line realities. But do either of them make me greedy ? Moi ? I mean, here I am doing my thing to high standards and fighting to get paid my due like loads of others in the same soggy boat. And we're all bailing out like crazy and trying to paddle out of the way while the good ship force majeure steams full speed ahead down upon us. Bound to sink us for sure. Come down off my unrealistic expectations of overnight success and multi-million dollar contracts ? Good grief man, these ideas are part of the aforementioned mythic perspective only, not the reality. Thank you for the sincere suggestion, but I can assure you that all who stand toiling honestly in amongst the actual arts landscape have long had our eyes wide open. Time to re-assess my career options ? Thanks again - but I already hold down two other gigs right now. (Funnily enough, both of those jobs also involve occasionally being patronised - wouldn't you just know it ?) Hope that helps both to contextualise my one-liner and also explain how, if a person really wanted to, it wouldn’t be too hard to construe aspects of your position as an ill-informed affront. Just sayin’…. as the kids today regularly offer as talismanic all-purpose excuse - we are all ordinary regular Songstuff mates here, so I don't actually necessarily fully subscribe to that pont of view. Yours in sincere good humour, Lazz. .

Either you are mistaking me for someone else or it's about time I began to feel insulted. .

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/may/13/gema-youtube-royalties-dispute .

This is a real tough one, John. I'm stumped. I remember scouring the internet a few years back for sites to do with songwriting and coming away pretty damn disappointed with most everything that most everyone else seemed to be cock-a-hoop about in the usual self-aggrandising claims and styles these sites appear to share. Obviously, I have my own personal preferences and bias in abundance, but that's basically how I ended up finding a comfortable home here at Songstuff where the culture and ethos are, in comparison, positive, open, supportive and generally free of problematic and misleading nonsense. Like several other members, I have also dipped my toes into the waters of MusesMuse where I found many damn fine people and made fine new friends to fool around and keep in contact with. But I found problems there. Maybe a guy like me is always likely to find problems. In terms of value as an "all round songwriter's resource', one issue for me is the simple narrowness of perspective - the hegemony of narrative-ballad models - maybe not quite at the extent of the overt Nashville orientation to JustPlainFolks and their expected county leanings, but it still pretty much defines the parameters of regular singer-songwriter and folk-rock models. Nothing at all wrong with folk music, mind - I wouldn't be without it - but if songwriting per se is a large house then my personal preference would be not to have all the action happening in just one room where Robin Frederich and AddictedToSngwriting hang out. That's the reason I like AmericanSongwriter - because Paul Zollo, author of "Songwriters on Songwriting" and the guy behind the site, while working to make sense of where his bread gets buttered, maintains a healthily broad and informed perspective which can accommodate Broadway and Tin Pan Alley as well as the Grand Ol' Opry. Another general problem I have with sites about song-writing is their heavy lyrical focus - and that's entirely driven by personal bias, too - I am predominantly a lyricist, so I always want to understand and learn more about music simply so I can become a better lyricist - so I'd sooner pay attention to an experienced somebody like Richard Niles who is smart enough not to give too much away for free but holds regular real-deal top-value work-shops on all aspects of getting where you want to go. Handy on-line resource about the Circle of Fifths is Rand Scullard’s on-line interactive model along with the accompanying User Guide which explains its application. My other top four personal bed-side songwriting resources are of the printed variety: Dick Grove's "Arranging Concepts" David Baker's "Arranging & Composing for the small ensemble" Jimmy Webb's "Tunesmith" Gene Lees' "The Modern Rhyming Dictionary" "The Complete Gilbert Sullivan" .