john

Welcome to Songstuff. Sup?

Hey I saw this and had to post it.... Sometimes a performance just takes things to another level, and this is one of them. Sweet Child O' Mine, arranged and performed by Luca Sticagnoli: Cheers John

I guessed as much, but the thought made me laugh. Lol

Agreed. Exposure and acccess are among those jurisdictional differences, although in essence "exposure" is generally regarded as "did they have opportunity". For example if a song is played every day on the radio, it is "reasonable" to assume exposure was "likely". That I believe is sufficient to satisfy that provision... so on interpretation it is very similar

Hey In essence you can copyright a chord progression... it is just very rare. The reason is that copyright is actually about what is "original". Chord progressions are very, very rarely original. Titles cannot be copyrighted. They are considered to be too short. The same is true of phrases. You can however protect phrases under trademarks (I believe), but I am not sure of the level of protection there. "Reasonable" and other such words where meaning is not exact, do have legal definition as to interpretation. This relies heavily on case precedence. In the case of music, it comes down to previous rulings as to what a jury has considered "similar", or where "reasonable" separation occurs. This is where the number of notes comes into play. We can all agree that copyright at a single note level would be impossible. It is too short... and fundamentally, it wouldn't be original! An Ents lawyer could say that at 9 notes with the same relative pitches and timing would definitely be ruled one way, but a jury could stil rule on 7 notes etc. There is also the aspect of proven exposure to the song. It is not enough to demonstrate similarity. Yet again this comes down to expected opportunity and will be judged by a jury. Different jurisdictions also rule differently, in part because their case precedence is different, and in part because of variations in law giving varying levels of protection for artists. For example, California tends to be quite protective of artists because their economy has a large component derived from copyrighted works. Spain however has a terrible enforcement of copyright and interpret the Berne Convention in a considerably looser way.

Great job Mahesh. I kept expecting Ravi to headbang lol

Hi and welcome to Songstuff!

I would comment, but I am biased. very!

Hi and welcome to Songstuff Seth. Dive in!

Hey It is less important than it used to be, but it is a useful approach for managing headroom. One thing not mentioned is the amount of easy control during mix down... Yet again within the realm of automated consoles and software mixers it is less of an issue. Let me explain: Often group controls are used to allow the engineer to control the overall volume of a group with ease. A perfect example would be a drum mix. There are multiple microphones involved. The engineer tweaks all levels to get an drum mix, complete with stereo positioning... But then how to control an 8 mic drum mix fade in or out? Back in the day engineers played their consoles like instruments, riding the faders during mix down. So it made mixes much easier to assign channels to group controls, and then control the overall volume of the group with one simple control. White high channel volumes and a lower group you can achieve an easy mix of the channels, but during the crucial group control the fader would have less available travel, therefore more margin of error, less resolution during mix down. For example, if channel A is set to output -6db, and channel B is set to output at -8db in order to get a good relative mix of A and B, but the group fader sets the group volume at -20db to achieve a good balance within the overall mix, then the group control has a far shorter range of travel during mix down... If instead of using a log scale for db we use a simple 0 as faders at -infinity and faders at 10 means +6db, then channel A would be set at 7, channel B would be set at 6 and the group fader at 4. This means that during mix down the overall range of movement for the group fader is only 0 -> 4. If during mix down you accidentally move the group fader to 3.5, that in reality can mean a difference of 5 db in this example. Pretty big! Not ideal when you are managing a 32 track desk with 16 aux and 16 groups! If however you set up your channel A as 4, channel B as 3.5 and the group at 7 to achieve exactly the same output volume, you can see that now the group control has a range of travel from 0 -> 7 representing the exact same volume range. This means the margin of error is less, the available control is finer... In fader terms we have almost doubled the amount of fader movement, meaning group adjustments are more fine. Make sense? For live or mix down management of headroom this can be critical. Less time wasted during mixdown and control of the overall mix is far better. Riding the faders was always fun. It really brought creativity to mixes. Mixes were a performance. With big desks some controls would be assigned to assistant engineers and the producer, and mixes would be rehearsed! Ah the good old days! Lol Cheers John

Hi Yaargh, welcome to Songstuff

Hey Working with a production team is something like working with an artist, and something like working with a songwriter. For example, if they are a "name", a known producer, part of the deal with them includes them putting their name to the work, ie you are trading on their name to a degree. If they are unknown this is less of a factor. That apart, they can be inputing to the song structure, arrangement, even lyrics (though less often) as a writer and creating the overall sound and performance. As such they can easily be creating more than 50% of the writing and all of the arrangement and performance, and contributing their name to the work to the extent in the dance world where a song can be completely under their name as an artist, perhaps featuring a guest vocalist with a lyricist good getting a small if any writing credit. So the type and extent of terms vary hugely depending on what they bring to the party. If you are hiring a producer in old school terms then expect a fee. As part of the writing team they will expect a large percentage of royalties and copyright ownership. Often they will want both a fee and a percentage... this in part comes down to their confidence in the material and the artist. Everyone needs to eat, so you can understand that they don't create a track for you as part of a charity. They can make more money as a percentage if the track takes off, but a fee right now is more certain. If you are an unknown, with no plans to exploit the track (ie as a demo pitch, or with you unsigned and no fan list) then they are more likely to want a fee because the chances of them getting paid goes through the floor. Overall it is a negotiation. What is standard very much depends on the several variables i mentioned. Add to that it is likely to be their studio you use. In total you have to make it worthwhile for them to work with you. Yes there are contracts that involve all these terms. be very wary of any working arrangement that does not involve a contract between you and all involved. Professionals expect contracts and business agreements.

Absolutely Hobo, but fans are still fans. I don't deny either the download market is an issue, or the streaming market for that matter. However, the issue is not about how those markets handle music, so much as answering the question of "Can artists make a good living from their music?" If you go at it with the old mindset, then frankly, you are stuffed. Fans still pay. Fans still like exclusivity. They still like to feel special. Artists are not duty bound to put everything they create on general release. People pay to be first. The Movie market works that way. You want it right away? Go to the cinema. Prepared to pay some but like convenience, go On Demand. Not prepared to stump up that, then movie channel subscriptions got your back 6 months after On Demand. Really determined not to pay? Well you can legitimately wait until it us on the free channels after a year, or you can break the law and go to some dodgy site that will blast you with advertisements, infect your PC with a Trojan or two and deliver a low bandwidth version of the movie! Some may still opt to have their own, physical copy. Some people fall into each camp. Depending on the movie, they may be in different camps of even several. Artists can do exactly the same. By that I mean they can target all these types of users. Some will always pay to get it early, get it first, get the best quality. Some will never, ever pay, may or may not be driven to get it immediately, or don't care about the quality they get. All combinations are possible, as are the wide variety of options between extreme positions... Such as price points! Ok, so an artist brings out a song. Yay! To a large extent they can take advantage of their understanding of different listeners. They can also take advantage of the changing value / desire-ability of a song. So, the trad model is, Artist pushes old song(s) to increase interest in new song. The new song is a product, but also a teaser for the album product. The old songs generate some long tail sales on previous albums. Each single (commonly 2 - 4 per album) provides an incremental step up in the number of fans on the fan list (if it is done right) do sales spike on release due to demand, each time settling to a higher number of fans than before. Each album should also be an incremental increase. If it is done right. One new approach, the single model, every song is a self contained released, with a spike of interest, each gathering a chunk of fans to the fan list. Each is a product. But singles do not exist in isolation. Neither do they need to be sole representatives of a song. E are used to "unplugged" versions, or live and studio versions, but now each version can have a different target market, a different distinct purpose, on top of building fans. Additionally, what we can do with fan lists has really, really changed. That is the true game changer. As an example: a traditional, unschooled "I must release an album" approach for indies is doomed to failure. It always was, it is just far more black and white than it ever was. Why? Well, if you go the approach of most indies, they spend a load of cash and time making the album, it takes ages, so they rush some of the process. Generally they follow no release process, they usually don't even consider singles properly (unless signed to a small label). They make their album available with almost no warming of the market with back catalog, with no build up of anticipation and splat, their album is ripped before it has sold 10 copies and the band gets almost no benefit from the process. At best, some new people stumble on the album and listen a few times. With no hype even that falls flat. If you are clued in, and understand listeners, fans, market segments, basic biz sense etc... Well you can be smarter. For example. You release one song. BUT you spend time building anticipation for a release date. You create various versions for various reasons... Like an acoustic version, a tutorial version, a single length version, an EP version, a video version, a lo fi version, clips etc. you acknowledge the different listener types, and where they live: your fan list, your radio stream, your download shop, iTunes etc, streaming services, radio listeners in general, single and album buyers the list goes on. For EVERY type there is a different, but coordinated approach, so that you make the most of every recording in every segment. Each serves a core purpose. You take advantage of availability and timing and exclusivity. You acknowledge the fact that what is new today is old tomorrow, and that some will pay to get it earlier, or more completely, all versions... Most importantly, you understand what it is to be a fan! This means that, when you first release a song you can provide the whole thing, in full, for free... But that is the acoustic version. You also provide full production clips ahead of time to reviewers and radio stations that will also link to past releases. You post a video version. It is shorter than the extended length version that you only make available to people on your fan list, paid subscribers, who also get to view exclusive video interviews and behind the scenes stuff, tutorials on how to play it etc. the official version is also on iTunes and normal radio (okay, the last is unlikely as they are a closed group in general!) of course time passes, and what is new, exclusive and expensive, becomes old, common place and free... Depending on how long it is post release. Then comes song 2. Leverage. You need to understand leverage. You need to put in place mechanisms to support your activities. You need to plan and coordinate your activities so they accumulate... Money, fans, listeners, whatever your goal is. All of the above! Lol Each step, each activity has a plan or two or three that will work for it, or it can be part of. Each has a mechanism, a process, a tool that makes it possible. There is no guarantee of being rich and famous. Being known and paid? That is very achievable. Very. Even for an old fart. Why do I not do it all? Well, for a start I have no interest in fame. Secondly, I have a variety of personal considerations that incline me not to. I do plan on releasing songs, gigging too if given a chance, and when I do I will take advantage of my knowledge of what works and why.... But, fame, masses of wealth? They just do not drive me, Sorry. Can I help others? Will I? Sure. That is the plan. I get asked regularly. For ages I have been limited in time, money and energy to really do it justice... But that is very, very different from not being able to help from the perspective of skills or knowledge. However, those that know me well will know that things have progressed with me, and with Songstuff. I am getting my feet clear, and I have been preparing the way to do many things I have wanted to do for ages. I have dealt with practicalities like paying bills, eating, keeping Songstuff open and being more and more useful... And the good news is that things are either dealt with, in hand, or planned for. This means that I get to focus on adding value, to increasing use, to creating, sourcing, and spending less time on maintaining, marking time, getting by. Fundamentally this should means loads of useful things for Songstuff users. I don't plan to rely on just myself either! IE, with changes come benefits, including bringing in new experience, adding services etc. Fun times.

Not new here

Hey The singles model is more or less as described, except it was not intended as a further free distribution as a constant stream of releases where some revenue could still be generated, but at the very least a suitable level of promotion could be attained with the never ending goal of getting to a level of popularity where concert tickets and merch etc would provide the basics of income. however, it can still be used to effectively generate income. The problem is this: You record an album of songs. The album is then made available somehow for free (often ripped by someone in the production or promotion chain). All tracks are instantly ripped and the overall promotional or monetary gain is of little different to if they had released one song. The reason I simple. In terms of increasing the market value of a band, music itself is now just a fulcrum, a pivot. The actual step up is achieved by the associated exposure and promotion. So, a singles model seems to be appealing. Each song is self contained. They are not recorded en masse and dumped on the market as a collection. Instead they are recorded as needed and drip fed onto the market, affording each the opportunity of increasing exposure. BUT That is only a little hit of how it can work. The BIGGER issue is bands not understanding how each model works, it's weakness and it's strengths. Fundamentally downloads work on a per track basis, although some services also provide album downloads where an album can be downloaded at a reduced price, say 10 tracks for the price of 10. Ever more desperate bands, not understanding fundamentals, follow the singles business model, forgetting the business. Everything becomes a giveaway. Mahesh, doing it right will make a difference, BUT: You are in a local market, a national market and an international market. While there are buying habits within your national market, similar though possibly less severe versions of those buying habits exist locally and internationally. I say locally is different because those are your closest fans, the friends and family, those who see your band more often etc. internationally there are definitely markets that were more recently paying markets. However awareness of different trends and buying habits is useful knowledge. In fact, understanding those markets allows you to work those markets to your advantage. Do you remember when you were releasing your EP? I told you it was all about timing. Getting the maximum exposure and promotion is all about timing. Retaining fans is about mechanisms and timing, making sales and profit is about timing. Without timing you may as well piss into the wind. Well, the singles business model is an ongoing exercise in timing, mechanisms and understanding leverage. Additionally, you cannot overly restrain your business practice by purely what happens in India, if your ambition lies beyond it. The clue here is the name. The Singles BUSINESS model. Not the singles giveaway model, or the singles vague goal model. It takes planning, coordination and discipline to get it to work. Sure, you can stumble towards popularity (or at least more popularity) by releasing (more commonly these days just "making available" not releasing) a sequence of songs. To make it a business model, it has to make money. It has to have a plan to work effectively. If you do it without a plan, making money us less predictable, less effective. If you have a decent plan your uplift in popularity can be multiplied hundreds of times. Your ability to make money can go up a thousandfold. How do you do it? Well.... I can tell you, but not all in one post! Lol

Lol TC

Oh, and at least for now, I would register the songs immediately with PRS and the recordings with MCPS with you as the co-writer and you as the publisher (the reciprocal of their registration), and you as the sole owner of the recording regarding MCPS. You can always amend it and or license a publisher to act on your behalf in a co-publishing arrangement. I would also register them with the US copyright office naming the co-writer too.

Hey Just a few quick words, building on the very valid points raised by Hobo and The S... I too think there is nothing wrong, per se, although there is a lesson there about having discussions arrangements, and contracts in place before the co-write.... Especially when working with someone already under contract. All the more so considering you recorded the demo. You might be able to be picky about recording costs and use of the recording, but fundamentally that might not be in your best interests. Next time sort out the recording costs up front, and the rights involved. Not very nice of them to do this behind the scenes (as it were) but the underlying practice is common. IE, two writers, each with their own publisher or publishing arrangement. It can be a great thing, or it can be a complete waste of time. Publishers only earn if someone uses the song. They may take a few approaches: *They add the song to their catalog with no intention to pitch it, IE they plan to get a free ride from your efforts to place the song. *They add the song to their catalog with a strong intention to push the song, in which case you get a free ride. (Would you be complaining about it that way around?) *You both add the song to your respective catalog (or your publishers) and you both push to place it. This can be great in some ways, but also a nightmare... No exclusive usage deals unless your publisher and their publisher come to an agreement. *They have no intention of doing anything with it and this is simply a way to protect their interests, after all the co-writer is under an exclusive agreement *They actually intend to have new music written for the words by a music writer already in their stable Having learnt the lesson of what to do first next time (professionals will not mind getting business out the road, they are all used to dealing with it, even when uncomfortable at times, it is necessary), I would focus on constructive discussion with your co-writer firstly and then their publisher directly (not via the co-writer). The discussion with the co-writer is to get their understanding of the situation... Has this been done before with them and the publisher, if so what did they do then? What was their approach? Do they have an idea of the publisher's intention? Having squeezed them for info, now armed with a better expectation, talk to the publisher. Don't expect to be signed to them. Approach it as if you have interest from another publisher or two, (without misrepresenting, IE be vague but upbeat) and you are shopping it around looking for a non-exclusive deal, or a deal limited to just that song or songs, and you wanted to know what they were intending doing with the song and if there are any issues with you seeking to get it published or even self-published etc. be as constructive and open as you can. A good working relationship is necessary to progress this with a good outcome all round. At least, that is what I would do. You never know... If they like the song and they think they could have a good working relationship with you, they may be willing to sign a contract for just those songs, or maybe more. I still wouldn't get my hopes up! How you progress this depends on your aspirations and intentions, a bit of homework in the publisher in question (talking to the co-writer may just help give you an insight). Be friendly until you definitely, absolutely cannot be friendly to them. Defensive or aggressive just puts walls up. Others may disagree with this approach, so if you can see the wisdom in it, sound others out on a constructive way forward that doesn't end with your songs sitting on a shelf, or you gaining nothing from the adventure. just my two cents. Cheers John

Hi and a big welcome to Songstuff

Hi and welcome to Songstuff Cris

Let me know how it goes. I found most initial embarrassment had passed within the first hour or so of doing it. That said, I would run into new situations that felt initially awkward, and some that just weren't appropriate, but the exercise is not in forcing it on every situation, it is about overcoming embarrassment, letting go, maximising your practise time, improving your melodies etc. It is also great for building bridges, building confidence in general, and helping make new friends, break the ice etc. it actually becomes funny to observe reactions, such as other people's initial embarrassment on your behalf, but they soon get over it.

Welcome to Songstuff Tony!

Good luck with your move TC

oh well, there goes my suggestion lol We are planning on launching a site supporter role, ie members who support the site financially (at say $15 per quarter) who would get access to extra features, articles, tools, intel, downloads etc. One thing we could look at is providing those members with extended storage including private albums. I do know that I cannot afford to shoulder the current costs of the site, nevermind additional storage.

Many thanks. Although I started Songstuff, our staff are volunteers from around the world and most members and most staff are from USA. A cool bunch too! Where are you based?