M57
-
Posts
1,299 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
FAQ
Interviews
Featured Artist
Featured Lyricist
Radio Contacts
Showcase
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by M57
-
-
Just so that people aren't confused - Musescore is pretty much strictly notation software, and not a DAW at all. I have colleagues who are music educators that use it, but Finale and Sibelius are still the industry standards. No doubt MuseScore is a lot cheaper. F & S are pro, which means powerful and detail oriented - so you can imagine the learning curve is significant. Also the big two are obscenely expensive plus you can say goodbye to an extra $100+ every year if you want to keep it updated so that you can work with others who have theirs updated because they update theirs so they can work with ... 😖..you get the picture.
For anyone who is interested in getting into entry level notation software, another option they should probably also look into is Noteflight. The advantage of NF is that's it's cloud based and runs on your browser anywhere - anytime - and from any computer. Me, I don't really have a horse in the entry level race; I'm a spoiled Finale user.
-
"What other DAWs do you use?" is a required field - and "None" is not an option.
-
1 hour ago, RobAsh15 said:
Don't apologize for your opinion, M. Just be aware that if you state it here, it will likely be challenged unless it is pat, and few arguments are, after all.
More to the point, I think, is the fact that such discussion and debate is what we musicians, as a group, need to do. It's our future in the end. Better that we decide which way the ship travels than the fickle waves and winds of fortune.
SO long as we don't spend TOO long debating. Time marches on.
Thanks Rob, I'm perfectly capable of putting my foot in my mouth with the best of them. But I knew the job was dangerous when I took it, and I can take the heat. Like I said, I'm still forming my opinion on this, but there's a part of me that just can't resist playing devil's advocate, even when I don't realize it. Stop it! -- No! You stop it!
So on the social agenda thing (that's what this thread is about, right?). I get that people use music to raise awareness about issues they feel are important, and I have found myself doing it, but I would qualify that by saying that for me personally the three most important motivators of my music have been the music, the music and the music. People here that know me through my posts know that I hate writing lyrics. I would probably sing about anything if I could find my Bernie Taupin. I wouldn't care if (s)he's the Anti-Christ with an agenda to get governments to shoot babies and puppies into outer space. I'm sure I would write about 20X the music I'm writing now. Now as it happens, I have to write my own lyrics and so I write about what comes into my mind, and my political and ontological views can't help but creep in there - and It just so happens that I like puppies.
-
Really? Did I say that people should do jobs for free? Nope - go back and read. I'm saying people shouldn't do whatever they want with the expectation that they should be paid for it, no matter what it is. If you don't want to perform for free, don't. Not unless you feel a great need to and people are unwilling to pay but you do it anyway. Let the market decide if they'll pay you. That's what's happening here. The writing of the song is not the valuable part. It's the performance that counts. Ask Vivaldi, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner - Oh and then we get to the 20th century..
And I'm not suggesting that song-writers can't make money in such a system. Not so. Did the engineers that sat behind the console during the recording of a massive hit get a piece of the action? Nope - they all negotiated and got their money up front. If in such a system, no one decides to write music because 'there's no money in it' I'd be shocked. If you are a good song-writer in the new system, whatever it may be, there should be people willing to pay you to write for them (especially if no one is willing to write HIGH QUALITY music for free as you seem to suggest). Just negotiate your contract upfront and wisely with the understanding that any money made as a result of your work will be because of their ability to disseminate it.
-
Hey, relax guys.. It's only a 'proffered' suggestion. I don't really have a strong opinion, but I do find myself leaning one way. As an amateur (one who creates music for love of music), I realize that the paradigm for compensation that I describe would create all kinds of additional chaos in the system, but honestly, it's a system I have little respect for. Where musicians are pawns who owe their souls to the Majors, and have been for longer than people care to admit, where who's rise to the top is has been largely decided by A&R, and where what people are fed on the radio is decided by the same. It makes it easier for me to be cynical because a large majority of the music is formulaically created and dispensed crap.
Yes, I don't feed my family by writing songs, but I did struggle as an under-employed musician for many years. I didn't like the game then, so why should I like it now. The idea that you own the 'sound' is a relatively new one and it does present some awkward problems, but technology is going to force the issue on this one. It's already happening; there's no way to stop it. There are too many people out there who can make good music (often much better than what the mainstream cookie-cutter industry creates) who will be able to make a living independent of the system by giving their music away. Napster may have created the expectation, but musicians are beginning to embrace it philosophically. Not to mention musicians (like me) who are able to create reasonably high-quality music in their homes that couldn't be dreamed of 30 years ago.
Might I think differently if I was at the top of the food chain? I dunno, but I would surely recognize that being at the top doesn't mean you are the best (in fact, given that you played the game it might even suggest otherwise) and that, even if I worked my butt off to get there, was still damn lucky. In fact, given the stat of the the industry, if I was making scads of money, I better be feeling guilty.
Luckily, I don't give too much thought to this whole fiasco - because I don't have to. You guys do bring up a number good arguments for sure. What's the difference between a live performance at the local bar, and a movie? I think the difference is obvious. For one, the ability to enforce laws regarding the making and dissemination of movies is much greater. Is there a continuum of venues that could be disputed fraught with slippery slopes? Absolutely. Should people who claim to be "amateurs" be able to make budget movies and be exempt? I dunno. But the nature of mechanical rights is changing, and the notion that certain jobs/functions are sacrosanct just so people can put food on the table is harmful in the end. The 'job' of song-writer looks to be suspect. Why is that a bad thing? Did Beethoven or Mozart receive any money when their music was played elsewhere? I don't know, but I suspect not. Who would enforce such a crazy idea? They made money on the road, performing, conducting, etc. Eventually publishing became affordable and people bought sheet music and the music became theirs to perform anywhere and for any reason. Physical records and tapes supplanted that. I never bought sheet music. I lifted it right off the album. Ripping and sharing is just way too easy now; there's no way to control dissemination of music. Boom - done. And there you have it, the rise and fall of the songwriter. if this was TL;DNR, then the short answer to the question..
QuoteWhich, by the way, does nothing to address the needs of lyricists and non-performing song writers. What happens to the work of those who cannot tour to earn an income? Do we simply write off these (careers, professions) as anachronistic?
uhmm,, >>Googles Anachronism<< ..probably.
-
On June 25, 2016 at 8:11 PM, RobAsh15 said:
So, what do we do about it? Guys, if I had a pat answer to that question, the chances are good I wouldn't be here, participating in this exchange. I'd be filthy rich, and off on my yacht somewhere, showing my wife the world she thought she'd never get the chance to see in our lifetimes. But one thing I think must be done IS being done, by and large. We must all, collectively, continue to view our music as a thing with inherent VALUE. We must protect our rights, and offer our music for sale. On websites, and yes, even on CD's, where the chance to generate revenue is a real one. Whatever mode we adopt to try and sell our songs, we must always think of what we do as intrinsically valuable. Worth a buck, or a quid... a mark, or a Euro, as the case may be.
If we ever buy into the zeitgeist that music is inherently valueless, then we are done. In one fell swoop, we will all be reduced to street corner performers, playing our songs for coins in a guitar case. The funny thing about that statement is that I know a couple of fellows who do that very thing, and make a solid living at it. So many other models for making money in the music business cannot make the same claim. I will say this, in closing, on this point: I firmly believe that there is a person, or, more likely, a number of people, who are, at this very moment, working on that which will come to be known as the device, or the program, or the safeguard, or whatever, that saved the music industry, and restored an artist's ability to protect and defend the copyright she holds on her music.
I'll proffer an alternative perspective..
Why should I want to limit the accessibility of my music to only people who can afford it?
- If all music is free, then all music hosting sites have to play on a level playing field. The ones that succeed are the ones that find the right audience for my music.
- If you want to hear me play my songs live or support my brand and merchandizing schemes - pay me (I control the value of my music.)
- If you want to use my song in your movie or advertising campaign, then sure - pay me, negotiating with me directly or through whatever service I choose with pre-negotiated rates. (I control the value of my music.)
- If you want to get a major artist to record it and release it to the public - it's free (acknowledge me).
- If you want to monetize that major artist's recording in a movie, etc. - pay me (I control the value of my music.)
When that major artist takes my song on tour, should I get paid? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Neither do I want to be paid a royalty when your local band covers my song at your favorite bar. Again, why should I want to limit the accessibility of my music to only people who can afford it? Besides it just creates middle-man industries that are nothing more than a protection racket. Right now, your local establishment is paying fees to ASCAP and BMI just so someone can sing your song. A less-cluttered system will ultimately be more transparent, efficient and fair.
-
On July 18, 2016 at 10:18 AM, RobAsh15 said:
I predict that 20% of cars on roads in America will be pilotless in 10 years. I predict that 50% of cars on the roads of The US will be pilotless in 20 years. Such a notion is so unheard of that my spell checker does not recognize the word "pilotless"...
I predict that a high speed data port, wired into the brain, will be as common a surgical procedure in the first three months of a human life in the US within 25 years as circumcision is now. CPU's will be external and remote, communicating with the data port via wifi. A new (one of many, likely) cottage industry will grow up out of this, with companies producing designer interfaces (necessary because the interface is permanent and visible on the side of the head) that accentuate the beauty or handsomeness of persons so hard wired. I also predict that this will increase the gap between the rich and the not rich even further, exacerbating the already existing tensions and conditions that lead to the 2nd American revolution before the year 2150.
IMO 20% of cars on the road is less a prediction than an estimate - and I'm hoping for better than 20%; it's pretty clear that humans have no business driving cars ..especially these days with so many electronic distractions and the mounting proof that computer driven cars (preferably networked) can drive 99.9% safer, more efficiently, and are capable of putting more vehicles on the roads with much less traffic. I predict that "Pilotless" is and will not be recognized by spellcheck because "driverless" is what the word should be. One could just as easily argue that the the computer is piloting as they could argue that it is driving. Hell, I'm PLANNING on being able to get in my driverless car, go to a bar, drink a little too much and have the thing safely take me home.. Take a nap on the way home from work? Sure. When I'm retired, I'll get in the car and It'll say "Good morning, Mark. We're going to the RX to pick up your meds." I'll respond, "But I Don't take any meds, do I?" and it will reply, "Yes, you do Mark. Don't you worry about it. Just get in the car."
Now as for the chip in the brain: I've been predicting that for years. Just 'think' and 'know.' Think and 'send.' Where are my children? Boom! (they're chipped). And I don't believe that it will necessarily be a class differentiator, because not unlike today's cell phones today, it will be affordable and ubiquitous. In fact, I predict the opposite: that brain chipping will be a societal equalizer. If anything, there might be a backlash of folks who refuse or don't need to participate in the chipping of humanity. Heck now that I think of it - they could actually end up being the elite 1% that get whacked in your predicted revolution. Beware the Borgevent. I'm not going to predict that - Way too scary.
-
OK, I'll take a qualified stand on the issue. Falsetto and headvoice are the same. I listened to the video above, and though I'm not an authority, I am an experienced trained singer, and I can say from experience that all the singer did was to close up/tighten and change the amount of air going through his vocal chords. What he calls head voice is what I would call a focused and more supported falsetto in a lower register. Using the what he calls the 'chest' voice is the cleanest, smoothest, least noticeable way to switch from falsetto to chest - or more accurately from falsetto to modal. but it's still falsetto. At best, the term could be used to describe a mixture of the two voices, but only as a descriptor, which might be helpful to the student.
Here's a Wikipedia page that appears to be reasonably authoritative.
Quote"However, as knowledge of human physiology has increased over the past two hundred years, so has the understanding of the physical process of singing and vocal production. As a result, many vocal pedagogists have redefined or even abandoned the use of the term head voice.[3] In particular, the use of the term head register has become controversial since vocal registration is more commonly seen today as a product of laryngeal function. For this reason, many vocal pedagogists argue that it is meaningless to speak of registers being produced in the head."
Here's the qualified part of my stand. Down toward the bottom of the page, we find a refutation, but a careful look at the following sentence is revealing. If you 'prefer' the term head voice, but acknowledge that there is no head 'register,' then we are talking about about the same thing, with one falling into a sub-set of the other.
Quote"These vocal pedagogists prefer the term "head voice" over the term register and divide the human voice into four registers: the vocal fry register, the modal register, the falsetto register, and the whistle register."
-
Hi, I would love some songwriting advice..
Write better songs..
I'm not saying your songs aren't good: I haven't even listened to them. But my point is, you need to be more specific. We're all here to write better songs. John's advice above is the best way to start if you can't be more specific. Post a song and ask for 'any and all.'
-Mark
-
2
-
-
You probably should have put this in the critique section of the site.
-
I doubt anyone would call the great Henry Mancini unsophisticated. Yet, not only did he score a Number 1 Pop hit, he did it with a lyric even less substantial than anything written by Bruno Mars. I give you Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet, the entire text copied below.
Just in case the use of the word "unsophisticated" was in response to my earlier post.
Yeah, pop music can be stupid simple, but it doesn't mean that it can't be sophisticatedI'm considering changing my opinion here.. It's very possible that lyrical sophistication can be detrimental to a tune's UHP (UH Potential). Certainly, complexity is a no-no, both musically and lyrically.
And Skylark.. Instrumentals don't count. I don't consider them to be 'songs.' If you've got an instrumental in your Top 40, then you really have a Top 39.
-
1
-
-
Reflections
I want to believe in something bigger than life
Just for this afternoon or maybe longer
See a sign hanging over the highway
Like a bridge to a promise land of fulfillment
An undeniable infinitesimal
Expression of individualism
A place where I could go to find
My tongue untied with soliloquism
Soliloquism isn’t a word so I texted it out
To all my friends to see who was listening
and if they wanted to join me in a quest
to seek glory for inventing a word
but they were all busy with day-to-day
or thought to themselves “I don’t want to go with him,
Besides I looked and there’s no such thing
Never is, never was, a soliloquism”
Guess I’ll have to look somewhere else
For grandeur and immensity
In introspect, should have known all along
Soliloquisms have no propensity
I like this one more.
-
On a serious note, here are some of my thoughts on writing a 'hit.'
I think the key to writing a hit song is all about perception. You have to be 'in touch' with the sensibilities of the 'common' listener of the set of genres that comprise today's pop music. There is a certain amount of truth in the cartoon I posted @ #70. Yeah, pop music can be stupid simple, but it doesn't mean that it can't be sophisticated. On the other hand, the common listener's range of experience with musical styles and comfort with various melodic, rhythmic, harmonic, arranging techniques is quite narrow. Save for the fact that a lot of movie scores explore a wide array of compositional techniques, and/or use music from different eras, most people would have little to no taste for, or even exposure to the range of musical expression that's out there. Yes, a hit can be sophisticated, but it can't be complex. On the other hand, I think a certain amount of innovation can actually be a good thing, but the nature of that innovation can't stray too far from 'common' comfort zone.
And I don't mean to berate or put down the common listener.. Just as they may not be able to differentiate Bach from Palestrina, Stravinsky from Persichetti, or Coltrane from Coleman, so would I not recognize or even be able to describe the differences between postmodern and neomodern architecture, much less be able to identify more than one architect synonymous with those styles. Yet, we all live in a world full of music AND buildings, and we all know when we like or don't like a building.
Anyway, that's what I got for now. I'm sticking with my theory ..until someone bashes it to the ground.
-
Don't forget to research the genre you choose, making sure you include all or most of the critical UH components. Here's a helpful guide:
-
1
-
-
Oh, and did I mention? They're going to insist on it for the first dance at all their weddings. I'll be sitting pretty well into the 2030's.
Ut Oh.. All my evil plans are being foiled by an angst-ridden tragic lyric - bathed in betrayal, reaking of rejection and ultimately drowned in despair and hopeless heartbreak.
I probably shouldn't count on the wedding circuit.
-
Oh, and did I mention? They're going to insist on it for the first dance at all their weddings. I'll be sitting pretty well into the 2030's.
-
Better get goin', Dek! I've already got the music bed pretty much done for my new super-catchy killer smash-hit contemporary power-pop tune!. I just need the lyric for a half verse and bridge. Of course, I have no idea if I can even sing it yet. LOL But, I think it's at least sounding cool! <heh-heh>
Hah! Your new super-catchy killer smash power-pop tune may have 'em tapping their feet Mr. Sage, but your UH will not fly as high in the charts as my heart-tearing tear-jerking knee-buckling power-ballad love song - carefully calculated to hit right where those 14-year-old girls have no self-control ..their dad's iTunes accounts. Now ..where is my calculator?
-
My guess would be that an undeniable hit would be one that can make a lot of money. Nothing more. And currently, that is based on how it sounds compared to other songs that are currently making a lot of money.
Well then - the winner is the one who makes the most money. You gotta have rules, right?
-
-
Well... I've never done it, but people do... So it must be possible to make a living from songwriting.
Who? Name one. I'm going to guess that most of them are also playing out, playing in as studio musicians, or teaching, or are established "artists" (I hate that word - I cringe as I type it), and need to augment their income via those means (a lot). We're talking about making a living, not just making some spare cash here, right?
As I recall, the way it use to work for composers/song-writers in the commercial business (like writing jingles, etc), writing the song was a ticket for being a musician on the recording, usually as a BV singer. If you sounded like crap, they could record you whispering "Paul is dead" and they would play it backwards during a cymbal crash or something like that - just so you could get the singer's royalties. OK, I'm making the "Paul is dead" part up.
From what I glean on other forums.. It's gotten worse.. There's no money in song-writing.
-
Going back to the original question.. "What's the difference between a poem and a lyric?", I think the previous poster, Mike, pretty much gave us a great starting point.
A lyric is poetry meant to be sung. I would choose to refrain from debating with those who would argue that the way poetry looks on the page 'matters,' but as far as I'm concerned, poetry is meant to be spoken - i.e. heard - and In this sense, it is organized sound, which is pretty much what I consider to the be the broader definition of music. If we choose to look at it from this angle, we could actually claim that lyrics are not a form of poetry; rather, poetry is a form of lyrics.
Regardless, the question we are asking here is not, "What is the same?" We are attempting to discern what is different - and in my opinion, the answer is ..not much. I have written songs to poetry. That is to say, I have written music to words that were not originally written with the intent that they would ever be used as a lyric. Was it 'pop' music? Uhmmm.. nope. Some of the very best choral music I have ever performed have been settings of text whose authors clearly never intended those words to be sung.
That said, when it comes to 'pop' music, there is an expectation for a certain amount of rhyming ..and especially 'close'-rhyming. The reason for this has less than you might think to simply do with keeping it simple and/or accessible. and this goes to the difference between the spoken word, and the sung word..
You can't intone a consonant (with the exception of the nasals, M and N). This is something that is important to be aware of when writing a lyric. Basically, 'notes' require a vowel sound to be heard. "Long" notes held by a singer are sung entirely on vowels alone. Consonants are fleeting when sung. Musically speaking, they are little more than articulations. And so it is that the use of rhyme (and especially close-rhyme), though never 'required,' is such an important weapon in the lyricists arsenal.
Are there other areas that we could look at that would have us differentiate between lyrics and poetry? Sure, but the above is a pretty significant one in my book.
-
TapperMike, Can you point us to these forums/lessons?
-
@Steve,
Sorry, I chose poor descrptors. I was thinking of the ultimate chord as the chord of the moment (which may be passing or something like a V of V) and the penultimate as the one preceding it - I was assuming that more chords will follow, but we don't necessarily know what they are. In essence, I believe we are in agreement.
-
For example, in going from a "I" chord to a "V" chord (C-chord to G-chord), I had assumed I should just be playing "C-E-G" for the "I", then transition to the inverted "V" (V^6, "five-six"), or "B-D-G", because that would greatly minimize the motion required for my hand.
But, just recently, I was reading through a good book I found on music theory that really gets into what I'll call "songwriting theory", and it seemed to be stating that there is a HUGE difference between playing "I" --> "V", verus playing "I" --> "V^6"... not that you would never play "I" --> "V^6", but it seemed that it was pretty atypical vs. most songs out there (i.e. on the radio).
Thus (assuming what I said above is generally right and makes sense), you can see the predicament I'm in, and hence, the stupid question: If I am indeed supposed to [generally] be going from "I" --> "V" instead of --> "V^6", do I go UP the keyboard (i.e. same octave) from the C-chord to the G-chord or DOWN the keyboard (down an octave) from the C-chord to the G-chord? As I said, I had previously assumed (I think, incorrectly) that the answer to this question was "stay in the same place", and just invert the next chord (and the chord after that, etc) to minimize hand movement required from one chord to the next.
Any help from any of you music theory / piano / "songwriting theory" experts out there would be GREATLY appreciated!
Thanks,
Dan
I'm can't be sure but I'm guessing you might be confusing a 6th chord (pop/jazz) with a first inversion chord (using "classical" figured bass notation). The latter is notated by referencing the intervals above the bass note (not the root). A I6/3 chord in the key of C is a C chord in the first inversion - spelled from bottom to top E - G - C. On the other hand a I6 chord is a C triad (presumably in root position) with the sixth tone of the scale (an "A") present to add tension.
-
Who's Online 4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 27 Guests (See full list)
2018: What DAW do you use?
in Music Production and Recording
Posted
Buy a Mac. 🤣
But seriously.. What do you want to do? Record just yourself? ..yourself and others? Are you looking for synth-heavy, drop in the beat-centric composing, or are you a 100% homegrown acoustic purist? What is your workflow like, or what do you think it will be like? Read up on the differences. Take a look at screen-shots and watch you-tube videos of them in action.
OR just get a Mac and go with Logic and never look back. (that's my recommendation and I have no biases