MikeRobinson

I know that MuseScore encourages a library of contributed scores, which of course are "scores" since they're MusicXML. I also know that there are many, many libraries of (public domain) MIDI.

Thank you for the clarification, M57. Also, I certainly do not intend to create any sort of "versus" comparison between the various products. That sort of nonsense is irrelevant. As is the case in all professional industries, certain products are established standards that you effectively must use, because of issues such as file-compatibility and the simple necessity of being able to produce a guaranteed work-product at the end of the day when that's what all of you, working together, are doing for a living. (And you all just suck-it-up 😉 and write off "license expenses" on your corporate taxes.) Nonetheless – MuseScore fulfilled 100% of my [amateur] purposes and I use it constantly. My assessment is that "it's as 'professional-grade' as I could have hoped for," and I certainly don't say this about every open-source tool that comes along! I also find that the MusicXML format, which is its underlying native file-structure, is easily transportable among other programs (including Logic Pro X, my chosen DAW). So, I guess that I'm a "spoiled MuseScore user!" 😀

FYI – one tool that i use very heavily isn't a DAW: it's a music scoring program called MuseScore. (Yes, my music often starts out as sheet music.) When I first discovered MuseScore, I had "money burning a hole in my pocket" and I was prepared to invest in a full-blown version of Sibelius,® Finale,® Notation,® or "what-ev-er pap-pa picked." Well, I started with MuseScore, because it was free, and ... I stopped ... because I did not feel the need to look further. (Yes, I still feel that way.) I had found everything that I was looking for, supported by an extremely active open-source development community, and "it's just a bonus" that I didn't have to spend money to get it. (I have financially supported the project since then, and I'm glad to have done so.)

Every software-design team faces the same fundamental problem: "what's in, and what's out?" A "general-purpose" design is harder to learn and, in the hands of users who want to accomplish a particular task, the more "dissipated" it appears to be. On the other hand, a "task-specific" design is by definition limited to a narrow vertical-slice of the market. Fortunately for all of us, there are many [both open-source and commercial] products available which serve each market segment: from Logic Pro® and ProTools® to beats-makers to Band In A Box.® Yes, we live in very interesting times . . .

Quite honestly ... "today, we enjoy an Embarrassment of Riches." Obviously, commercially-focused products such as Logic Pro and ProTools will never change their focus away from their commercial customers (who continue to do billions of dollars' worth of business with them ...), but those of us who "do this, just for fun" have never had more options at our disposal. (And in some instances, "they completely re-invented themselves without changing names." For instance, GarageBand became Logic Pro Lite!) So, "these days, if you just can't get 'er done, don't blame the computer!" 😁

I'd love to see a topic or forum-post here which (re-)addresses this important subject. In addition to all of this "very important stuff," even if you are putting a song out casually on the Internet, maybe with no initial thought of making money from it, you should nevertheless be sure of one very-basic thing: In whatever file-creation software you use, be sure to specify the song's metadata: title, author, publisher or contact-information, and, yes, copyright. Always be sure that the sound-file can be traced back to you. (Even if you do not immediately register the copyright, always formally assert that you do, in fact, own the material.) Never let a sound-file wander into the Internet "anonymously," such that someone who stumbled upon it couldn't reasonably find out where it came from. And one more thing: If you use anything that is covered by copyright, and even if you think that what you're doing is "fair use" and even if it is, please take the time to cite the owner's copyright in your metadata, and in accompanying web-pages and so forth. The law contains a pesky provision called the Doctrine of Laches under which owners can lose their copyright protection, and they're understandably paranoid about that. Even if you "didn't ask permission first," cite the intellectual-property rights that you didn't clear, thereby acknowledging that those rights exist, and that the works are not (eeek!) "in the public domain."

I'd suggest inquiring right-away with "The Big Two:" BMI and ASCAP.

"God help them both" ... Mr. and Mrs. Barak Obama are striving to raise-up their daughters in a fish-bowl. The Carter family strove to raise-up Amy in similar condiions ... ... and the Trumans ... ... and ...

To my way of thinking, "super-duper über-sequenced god-knows-what ..." ... is just ... ... the 21st Century version of ... ... ... "an instrument." "An instrument," simply stated, "is nothing more than potential." It is, "a starting point, nothing more." Anyone can get there, without effort. "T-h-e Question" is: "what happens next?" In "the old days," the next step required hand-eye coordination and perhaps-years of physical training. Today, those physical constraints might be removed. But the objective has not changed. You must connect to your audience. And, by the way, "your audience neither knows nor cares 'how the trick was done!'"

So, let's try to rescue this thing ... Chop off "the first-X critical seconds." Leave no split-second for a "musical-pad intro." Instead, drop straight into the vocal within the first two seconds, and make extremely sure that the first phrase of that lyric contains: "an irresistible 'hook.'" Next, go after the listener with "a wall of sound." Add multiple layers of instruments – by gawd, a virtual symphony orchestra – covering all the octaves. "You've basically got five seconds." Grab a few YouTube snippets of The Gong Show to see exactly what I mean. Yeah, that show was brutal ... it was "Name That Tune" in reverse. But – it was real.

Aww-w-w-w... this is easy. How many people, during the ordinary course of their ordinary work-day, ever get to connect with any person that they meet ... as a person? Uh huh. Therefore, all of us, after suffering through yet-another day (Abba's "The Day Before You Came" comes to mind right now ...), go in search of some emotional connection. Maybe it's just the satellite radio on the way home. Maybe it's live music at a convenient bar as we limit ourselves (old-pharts that we by-now are ...) to one drink. A musician ... and, a songwriter ... is privileged to have the opportunity to speak to that thoroughly-anonymous person, and to do so using a product of his-or-her own personal creativity. "Our Audience" wants to be "pleasantly surprised" for at-least the next three minutes. "Our Audience" seeks what we may offer. (Feelin' "pressure" now? Uh huh. If you're a serious artist, you should!) However, that 'pressure' should just be what a craftsman ordinarily feels. "Making music" is an incredible privilege ... and a driving force. (If you "are a musician," you can never not be one ...) Even if you never make a dime from it, you are among the most-incredibly-lucky people in the world.

As I listen to this tune ... receptively ... openly ... encouragingly ... ... I'd simply suggest that it needs some serious mixing. Although the various sounds are "okay, by themselves," (albeit rather mechanical ...), there's no cohesion to it. The various parts, each at their various (wildly different ...) volume levels, make no particular attempt to "get along with one another" to present the listener with ... a singular musical experience. Take each of the component tracks and, first of all, normalize their respective volume levels: make sure that none of them overpower any of the others. Then, "plan the performance" in which all of these various instrumentalists are intended to be players. Imagine that these "people" really are performers, all on-stage at the same time in front of an eager and appreciative audience, and plan just how you intend to let each one of them, in turn, "shine!" At various points during the performance, some of them will "step up to the microphone," while others will "step back" and support them. During each musician's "moment of glory," their particular sound will be front-and-center. At other times, their sound will "continue to be heard, therefore be familiar," but will not take the lead. I have no "tomatoes" to lob at you, Chris. Instead, I invite you to take what you've got now and plan a cohesive musical presentation. Every one of your musicians has already handed you a very fine performance: you have all of them "in the can." What you need to do now, is to construct "a show." (And, fair warning, this happens to be "one of those things that Experienced Folks do so well, that we fail to realize that they are actually doing it.") "Doesn't it, like, just happen that way?" Uhhh... "no."

"Hey, Isn't there a [country ...?] song in that?!"

When the band "Pentatonix" released their obligatory Christmas album, they included a bonus-track of Let It Go (from the Disney movie, Frozen) that, I happen to think, is much(!) better than the "official" movie version. Obviously, the song "has nothing at all to do with Christmas." However, since they were publishing an album anyway, they included it. As a "bonus."

Ready for a little surprise? The melody of Fitzgerald was not(!) an original Lightfoot tune! He didn't write it!! The tune already existed (in the public domain ...) and he set his poem to it. Which, by the way, is a perfectly-legitimate artistic thing to do, and a thing that is very often done.

Personally, I would "err on the side of caution" if I intended to make commercial use of "anyone else's" material, "no matter how slight." Find out who might possibly own the rights to that Robin Williams clip, and go on-record as having asked permission to use it. (As well as having "exercised due-diligence™" in seeking to discover who-to-ask.) In this way, you show that you (a) "respected copyrights," and therefore (b) "covered your butt!" You show that you recognized the legal possibility of infringement, and that you proactively sought to settle the matter to your satisfaction before proceeding. Therefore, even if a Court of Law concludes that you were in error, you can in good faith plead "innocence."

Personally, I, as a music consumer, am craving "something 'actually new.'" In particular, a truly new sound, as in "production techniques." Freely confessing to "my age" here ... ("harrumph... these kids today ...") ... I vividly remember the first intrusion of technology into music-making: MIDI, and the electronic sequencer (which, at that time, was a physical device). These innovations produced a series of long-lasting musical "tropes" which, in my opinion, persisted for a full twenty-five years. Both "hip hop" and "EDM = Electronic Dance Music" are, in my humble, merely extensions of the original "80's music." Right now, we're wallowing in "uh-oh plus-one" music: Taylor Swift meets AutoTune™ meets "wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh wuh-wuh-wuh-one syllable words stretched-out to twelve (or more)." "Been there, heard that." As for me, I'm frankly hoping to hear music that is a lot more musical. I'm encouraged to hear popular tunes that are being preceded by "truly orchestral" passages (lifted from public-domain music sources), and I am frankly hoping that the next decade of music will strive to serve us things that are genuinely imaginative and interesting.

"In the eyes of the law" ... and this much is pretty-much true around the world ... "the thing that you are copyrighting is 'the song itself.'" Not any particular expression of it. (This, for instance, is why every "cover" of a popular song must pay royalties to the original author, even though each "cover" is obviously different from the original.) The best practice is: "before the song is ever published for the first time," copyright the song. Then, if there is a particular expression of the song that you wish to further identify, you can also register the expression. (This provision of the law exists specifically to protect those who need to say, "This is my cover of 'My Sweet Lord' ...") This generally appears under the symbol, "circle-P." (Bear in mind, however, that ... "if you can properly claim to own the blanket, then you need not [also] bother to lay claim to any particular bed upon which said blanket lies.") Nevertheless: In the United States, http://www.copyright.gov is a very thorough and definitive resource. There is a lot(!) of material there. Spend as much time as may be necessary ... carefully reading it.

Dunno ... I thoroughly enjoy the musical tracks that both of these people manage to bring to my XM Radio as I while-away the miles on an otherwise thoroughly-boring highway. Therefore, may I suggest that "Charles M. Schulz (Peanuts ...) was probably on to something." He didn't wait for 'inspiration' to strike. Instead, he gave it a daily appointment. Even if it didn't show up, he expected it. And in this manner he produced a vast number of iconic comic-strips. Whether or not he ever "lost interest in" producing comic strips ... doing so was "his life." And that is why he succeeded.

Don't forget The Great Secret Of Art: "Hell, it isn't 'easy' ... it never was! We just prefer to make it look that way to the Great Unwashed (who buy our stuff)." Therefore, let me let you in on a Great Trade-Secret: In the real world, songs don't arrive "like Venus in a clam-shell ... fully-formed, drop-dead gorgeous, and by-the-way totally ." Never did. Never could. (And if it could, none of us would have a job ...) Creativity is mostly a process of selection. There is no "right answer," and this is actually a good thing, because it means that "You really do(!) get to choose!" Don't be alarmed if you find yourself with "half-a-dozen equally-good alternatives" that "could go 'here.'" (Pick one, then save the other five for your next song(s). "And so it goes.") If "creativity" were not "a decision-making process with no deterministic answers," then no-one in the world would need us ... at all! Fortunately, they instead expect us to wrestle with all of this "process" ... of which they know nothing and care less ... and to subsequently surprise them with: "art." (Shhhh... don't tell 'em!! They want to gawk at Michelangelo's finished sculptures. They do not want to see: "marble chips!")

There is no "computer algorithm" that would decide whether-or-not infringement has occurred. The "la la la la la" phrase used in this song is quite generic ... as long as you promise to exclude "those dammed canaries!" ... And, as long as you do not produce something that "immediately calls to mind" that song. In other words: "the note 'E', repeated as six eighth-notes followed by a rest, followed by the note 'D' repeated similarly and so-on," is nothing special. But, given that your composition seems to remind you(!) of "this particular dreadful(!) song," you probably should do something about it. Change the instrument. Get rid of the birds. Do something ... anything (pretty please!!) ... in the passages surrounding "that particular phrase," that do not teleport me, or you, back to "that particular song." Either in the overall melody, or in the musical treatment of that melody. Personally, I would not automatically consider what you've done to be "a sample." If you literally took a sound-bite (or a so-called "stem") from an actual existing musical recording, that would be "a sample." But if you merely play six eighth-notes of "E" followed by six of "D," that is not. (P.S.: "Ugh." Thank you for re-introducing me to an ear-worm ...)

The song in your YouTube video is very pleasant to listen to, indeed. And the set of accompanying images is very creative, as well. Don't "sell yourself short" in this Internet age. Even with regard to the lyrics! First of all, remember that o-n-e "clean" limerick was very-recently discovered! Second, just stop and think about how many "stupid" lyrics made a fortune: "Don't Worry, Be Happy" anyone? . . . First, start gathering all those songs together, including their lyrics. Make a collection and copyright them. (Should be $35 for the lot.) Then, start making YouTube videos. Start "talking 'em up" on Facebook and other places where like-minded people meet. Maybe someone else will pick up one of them and do something with it. Since you own the thing, you'll get paid.

"Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)" software is pretty-much universally available these days. Plenty of open-source tools, lots of powerful programs being included as part of Windows. Apple has both GarageBand and its big brother, Logic Pro. You can get very-good instrument sounds and plenty more. But ... what is a repeatable process for "writing an original song" with these tools? Here's what I do. (1) Capture "that song in your head" any way you can: Got a phone in your pocket? Even a "flip" phone will have a basic voice-recorder. Find the app, start it, and hum. Whistle. Anything. Capture it. (2) In your DAW, create a one-note "Guide Track": A simple USB keyboard is great for this, although most DAWs will even let you use the QWERTY keyboard. Pick a simple piano patch. Turn on the metronome ("click track"), and just start playing. If you "clam" a note badly, just pause and keep playing. (Or, keep playing 'cuz you can fix it later.) Play a simple, single-note melody. If you've got different ideas, play them all. Keep it simple – just use the white keys. (The DAW can transpose it to any key you wish.) (3) Now, make a "Guide Chords Track": While listening to the guide track, just play simple three-note "triads" in so-called "root position." The first, third, and fifth notes. White keys. If your DAW supports "multiple takes," you can divide the guide-track into sections and play multiple versions of your guide chords for each one. (4) Copy-and-paste from the guide tracks into new tracks in the possible general order of your new song. Mute the guide tracks. This is where you select the stuff you do want to use. We'll call these "song-guide tracks," and eventually they, too, will be muted. (5) If your DAW supports "drummers," add a simple drummer doing simple things. (6) Add instruments. Instruments will be doing chords or melody. Copy and paste from the song-guide tracks. Experiment with "inversions" of the chords (putting the three notes in different order), and maybe adding 7th or 9th notes to the three (1st, 3rd, 5th) that you have now. Experiment with letting the various notes "arrive" at different times. (7) Throughout all this, "don't destructively edit." It's okay to try different things. (That's why they call it "a computer.") It's okay to be surprised. If you made multiple "takes" of a part, it's okay to keep all of them. Don't fixate on the latest thing you've done. Don't get stuck trying to make that one thing "perfect" before you move to something else. If you decide not to use an instrument or a part, mute it, don't throw it. Duplicate the track, mute the first one, and try something else. At some point, as if by magic, "it will 'become' a new song." You'll play your project and ... suddenly ... you're hearing a new thing. You'll recognize it, of course, and yet, some part of you won't. Part of you will be listening to it. And, one day, you'll find yourself absent-mindedly humming a tune, before it suddenly strikes you that it's your tune. A DAW is "a word-processor for music." It removes many of the "chores" from creating music and makes it very easy to experiment while making music. Thus, it's a terrific creative tool. Enjoy!

"The moment of inspiration" is a precious moment ... but it is only "the beginning." "When the magical moment happens," I say: "don't question it ... capture it." But at the same time, fully realize that "the thing that you have captured" is not necessarily finished. You don't have to "know what to write about" in order to write, and you don't certainly need to dismiss what you have witten merely because it does not make sense to you now. Capture it. You can ask questions later. "Inspiration," after all, necessarily leads to: "perspiration!" No matter what you initially come up with, "it isn't final." Don't expect it to be. Don't require it to be. Instead, dive-in to the production of drafts. One after another after another ... and keep them all. Eventually, you will decide to stop, given the "final" version that you decide to call "final." (Having very-carefully kept all of the 'other' ones for possible future use ...) The good news is that Hard Rock Café will only want "your napkin." After all, the popular assumption is that all mega-hit songs are hastily written-out in longhand on a nearby napkin.

It is also well-worth remembering that many of those musicians that we now idolize bought their original instruments because, at the time, they were busted ... as in, flat broke. Sure, sure, it's "fun" to think about someone who made guitars out of square-boxes ... until you stop and remember that the artist in question did so because he couldn't afford to buy a "real" instrument. He was, at that time, "absolutely nobody." Yes, at the time he couldn't even afford to be prowling around in a pawn-shop. "Giving the devil his due" with regards to Marketing, I simply think that you should buy an instrument ... any instrument ... for what "this particular piece-of-wood-and-metal is." And then, having bought the thing, "make magic with it." After all, that's precisely what your heroes did.