thepopeofpop

I wonder how that actually works. I know the video got 22 million hits on YouTube - but surely an individual hit on YouTube is worth a tiny fraction of a cent.

That's also because the 3rd in a D chord is F# - this sounds jarring following the F in the G7 chord. Gmaj7 resolves much more nicely to D. G7 resolves much more nicely to Dm. That doesn't mean that you can't do a more difficult chord progression - it just requires more care. The circle of fifths is just a convenient notion - you can use it or ignore it as you see fit. Or go "the wrong way" - backwards - around the circle of fifths (a circle of fourths if you go backwards, as you point out).

Beth, your best option is to find someone who can write songs for you - you can guide them in a general way as to what you want to sing about. You don't need to pay them, they will make money if your performance of their songs leads to success. If you are giving the songwriter some input into the songs then you may be able to split the credit for the songs in some way. Although you could buy someone else's song outright, I don't think you'd find any good songs this way. Certainly not at a price you could afford. Why don't you have a listen to some of the songs written by people on this website? See if you find anything you like. You'll probably find that most people will happy for you to sing their songs. There's plenty of songwriters who aren't great singers and so are happy to work with somebody who can really sing.

What the article shows is that the main part of most artists' income is derived from performing, which of course that isn't adversely affected by file-sharing or iTunes. However, it may well be that file-sharing really is causing a reduction in legitimate sales - both from physical product and from legal download services. When you consider that the cost of a CD has fallen since the introduction of CDs in the 1980s, while the cost of tickets to live performances has gone up dramatically, it isn't surprising that live performance is now so important to an artist's bottom line. However, if you are an artist who doesn't perform ... then the news isn't so great. Not great news for producers either!

Yes, I find it easier to write the lyric once I've got the melody, although often a little bit of the lyric is written first. I usually start with a couple of lines - maybe the title - maybe just an interesting idea, and then start developing the melody from that. However, if you're writing all the lyric first then you need to find the rhythm in the words. What I do is to count "1-2-3-4" in my mind while reading through the words, to see how they could fit over a standard 4/4 beat. In other words, I'm looking for the meter of the lyric. Not every line will fit properly, so you either modify those lines or else modify the music for those lines. On the whole though, you need to find a particular meter for most of the lyric: http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/meter-in-lyrics.html Of course, not all songs are in 4/4. You might find that your lyric works better in 3/4 or some other time signature!

I wasn't aware that there was a Sennheiser B1 microphone. I know Behringer make a B1 condenser microphone which is pretty decent, but I don't know about the Sennheiser. I have Sennheiser 595 headphones, so I am familiar with the brand!

Excellent stuff! Muchas gracias! BTW, I read the Independence Free page, and although it is in German, it does say that it runs on Windows as well as Mac.

My advice is that you should immediately copyright the lyrics as a separate work. Use a different title for the lyrics - do the lyrics quote the title of the instrument piece? That could be tricky - if your work is too obviously derivative of the original piece you could run into problems trying to establish your work as an original work. Registering your lyrics with the Copyright Office would be the best way to safeguard your interests should the combined work (music and lyrics) be recorded by other artists in the future. The reason why the publishing company is trying to deny you any royalties is to safeguard their interests should your "new" version become popular. They don't want to end up in a situation like this: http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_tempofamous.html In other words, they don't want you to ever have a claim over the instrumental. However, since they did not hire you to write the lyrics, they don't have a moral right in denying you an equal share of the royalties. Also, you are not replacing the existing lyrics of an existing song - you are writing a new element that did not previously exist. This isn't something presumptuous like writing new lyrics to a Beatles song! They do have the right to not allow you to attach your lyrics to the music they publish, but they don't have the right to say "yes, we'd like to use your lyrics to create a derivative work, but you won't get paid for it". If your lyrics are good enough to be used, then you deserve a share. That being said, they are in a strong position. You can't use the music without their permission. Of course, you could always find different music that fits your lyrics and hope for a friendlier publisher! If you have your heart set on using this particular piece of music. You may need to haggle. Perhaps you can get some percentage, just not 50% -

I haven't been here long enough, I think. Although the experience of sharing my songs/ideas is ... interesting. I feel like maybe I could mentor less experienced writers.

If you are not signed to a publishing company then you are entitled to 100% of the royalties. Publishing royalties are only relevant if you have a publishing contract. It's true that if you are unsigned then you are technically your own publisher, but you don't have to do anything to make that happen. Since you are registered with ASCAP they can track you down to pay you the royalties as long as your songs are copyrighted.

You can record at home on a regular laptop AND use some decent equipment as well. Good studio mics/good preamps and a bit of class in the outboard effects department, plus whatever you can afford on software plugins. That's how I do a lot of my stuff - although I can take tracks into a studio if need to. I can record all my home stuff at 24 bit/96 kHz if I want - although in practice 24/48 is generally adequate. Of course it helps if you know what you're doing - there's no substitute for experience and know-how.

I know this a pretty old thread, but I will make some comments anyway. You need at least 3 mics to do a really decent sounding recording of drums. However, 2 is better than 1. If you use just 2 mics as overheads then you won't get much bass drum. (The bass drum is also often called the "kick" drum). If you use 2 mics, with one as an overhead then you won't get any stereo spread, although this kind of micing was common up until the sixties. There are two main kinds of mics - dynamic and condenser. Condenser mics are more sensitive, both in terms of circuitry and also construction, so they are not good for use on drums, except as overheads. A condenser mic placed close to the bass drum will just get overloaded in terms of the sound level, and a condenser placed close to the snare is just likely to get hit by the drummer and destroyed! If you are in a situation where your recording equipment doesn't allow you to connect up more than 1 or 2 mics, there is a way around this! I think the BR 864 can only record two tracks simultaneously - but it's possible to use another mixer which does have multiple mic inputs and then connect the stereo line outputs of that mixer to the line inputs on your BR 864 multitrack recorder. So you plug your mics into another mixer (it's possible to buy a cheap mixer with 4 to 8 inputs) first. You just need a mixer than has multiple mic inputs, which it means it has multiple mic preamps to bring the mic levels up to line level. This technique was used on the early Beatles' records because they didn't have enough inputs on their main mixer (I think they only had eight inputs) and they were recording all the basic instruments in one live take - drums, bass, and two guitars - so they submixed the drums first. So just make sure you balance the levels of the mics and the stereo placement of each mic. The bass drum mic should be centred, of course. If you use 3 mics then there are various ways to do this. One is to put one mic on the bass drum - usually placed fairly close - and two mics overhead. However, there's two classic ways of doing that. One is two position the mics overhead at either end of the kit for stereo spread. The second is to put the two overhead mics above the centre of the kit but at 90 degrees to each other - this will give stereo with less cancellation issues. There is a third way, which was used on the early Led Zeppelin albums, is to place one mic near the toms and the other directly above the centre of the kit. This second method still gives stereo imaging but will give more power to the toms. If you use the third method try to position each mic at an equal distance from the snare, so that it is centred in the mix. If you go beyond three mics then you will usually have two overheads, plus one on the bass, one on the snare (positioned about an inch above the drum skin, but placed where the drummer is not likely to hit the mic) and one or two on the toms. Usually the hi-hats, crash and ride cymbals will be covered by the overheads. If you want more control over the snare you can put a second mic underneath the snare. The snare is usually placed in the centre of the mix. The more mics you use, the more control you have - but you can run into issues of phase cancellation, so you need to experiment with the placement of the mics, particularly the overheads. It depends on what sound you're going for. But the answer is generally "yes". Carpet is the best, cheapest, way to deaden the sound of a room. Put carpet on the walls too. Don't bother with egg crates, they do nothing. The things that look like egg crates in recording studios are made of special sound absorbing material - the cardboard in egg crates does almost nothing. Also, heavy curtains can help a lot. Yes. They play to a "click track" which is the same kind of thing. The only exception to this would be recordings where most of the instruments are recorded at the same time and/or where the tempo of the track changes repeatedly.

Exactly. He's the biggest one-trick pony in the business and he blew most of his good ideas on "The Sixth Sense".

You can do all that at home. You don't even need a real orchestra. You just need to be able to write scores (or find someone who can). The Beatles recorded their first album in 10 hours. Sgt Peppers took 129 days, but that was like reinventing the wheel, and then after that they started getting a bit quicker again. The most monumental track on Sgt Peppers, "A Day in the Life", only took a day to record and mix! If these bands need to take such a huge amount of time then they should just buy their own studio - it would be cheaper. They could rent it out when they weren't using it to recover the cost.

His mistake was mentioning Shazam in his blog. If he'd just said he'd written an app that matched songs by sampling small sections, without mentioning the name of a product that already does this, he'd probably be OK. The thing about lawyers is that they have to justify their jobs, and this guy looks like an easy mark, so they get to do "something" by sending him threatening letters. I'm not sure their lawsuit would succeed. I mean, you can't patent an idea, you can only patent a specific solution. For example, Edison didn't invent the lightbulb, because it already existed. He invented, and patented, a better lightbulb. The previous inventors couldn't sue Edison because his lightbulb worked in a better, different, way. From what the guy is saying about Shazam's US patents, it sounds like they haven't provided enough detail about how their app works. It's almost like they have just patented the "idea". It wouldn't be the first time a patent was granted inappropriately.... Such a patent could be challenged as it prevents competition. There should be no reason why another company can't do what Shazam does. Apple aren't the only people who make computers, Nokia aren't the only people who make phones...

Since you're already up to speed on the greats - such as The Beatles and Elvis Costello - I'm going to go a bit left-field and suggest Kate Bush and Steely Dan. A lot of the other suggestions already mentioned are worth listening to as well!

That's a good question. Flow was something that took me a little while to master. When I started writing songs I mainly wrote lyrics for the first few year or so - because I thought I needed to get better in that area. That may have been a mistake - I got better at expressing myself and I guess I developed a style, but my lyrics were not well-structured. There were too many words and not enough "shape". When I started writing "proper" songs with music the effect was that over time the lyrics started to flow better because I was considering the musical structure - the "what comes next" and "how do we finish" areas in particular. If you don't write music then something to consider doing is to find classic songs - pop songs or whatever genre you like best - and look at how the lyrics work in those songs. Look at the words written down (you can google most song lyrics) and listen to them at the same time while the song is playing. Or take an existing piece of music and write new lyrics for it - don't worry, it's quite legal to do this - some professional lyricists do this when they get stuck. This way you're writing something that already "flows" and you can see for yourself how it works. Also, be critical about any song you hear. Some songs have bad lyrics - when you hear a bad lyric think about what you would do to improve it. I've often been inspired in this way - hearing a song that did something poorly and thinking "I could write a much better song about that subject". Also when listening to a song you've never heard before, try to guess what the next line will be. You might be surprised to find that your guess is better than the actual words in the song. If it is better, then you can use it! As I say, listen a lot, be critical, and you might start to become a bit of an expert.

Perform live. Anybody can make a record now but not everyone can put on a good show.

I think it's a good start. I can imagine a melody fitting those words. Also there is a definite viewpoint in the lyrics - the relationship between two people is breaking up and the writer feels that there's nothing that can be done. If I was writing the lyric I would make the next line "There's nothing that can be done" and then repeat it two or three times, while changing the chords, as a "pre-chorus" buildup to the chorus itself.

John Lennon said that his songs were like a lot of little melodies linked together. You might do well to work in a similar way. As has already been suggested, keep all your ideas for future use. If you collect enough of them then some of them are going to fit together to make a song! The main thing is that it is VERY difficult to maintain inspiration long enough to write an entire song in one go, so you're going to have to learn to develop the little inspirations that you have. I've written hundreds of songs and I've been lucky enough to have written 3 of them in a few minutes - the rest of them I had to build up over time: anything from a day to more than a year. Remember, the more you write, the better you get!

Yes - don't be afraid to re-write again and again. Also don't be afraid to combine ideas ... you might be able to combine two half-decent lyrics to make one really great lyric. Also if you're just starting out you'll probably have to write quite a few lyrics before you start to get good at it. Just stick with it. As has already been said - it largely depends on the style of music. What I would suggest first is to ask "What kind of lyrics do YOU think are great?" Is there any lyric that makes you wish you'd written it? Because that's really what you should be aiming for. I could easily list songs by Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Elvis Costello, Tom Waits - but they may not be appropriate for the style of music you want your lyrics to work with. The other thing you might want to do is listen to songs and pick out examples of BAD lyrics. Why? Because you will learn what not to do! One thing you are going to find is that there are a lot of bad lyrics out there - plenty of songs are carried purely by the strength of the music, which isn't to say that lyrics are unimportant because a good lyric is always an advantage. Really there are several elements to making a good lyric: 1. Do you have something to say? It can be hard to really focus on a specific idea when you start out. I find that coming up with a good title can be a big help. Often I start out with a fairly vague idea when I'm working on a new a lyric. I might just begin with maybe just a couple of interesting phrases - after a while I start working out what the song is actually about and then it gets much easier! Sometimes when I get stuck I might read the news or watch a movie and then something will suddenly jump out at me, something that makes me think of the lyric I'm working on in a new way. 2. Always be open to ideas ... carry something with you to write ideas down. If you think of a phrase that has a nice ring to it, write it down, even if you don't have a song you can use it in. You'll probably get to use it sooner or later. 3. Is it likely that anyone wants to hear what you have to say? What makes your lyric worth hearing? 4. Style: How are you expressing your idea? I don't want to say that cliches are a bad thing, but be aware that there ways of playing with commonly used phrases that can make them more interesting, just by twisting a word or two around. It's not just what you say, it's the way that you say it. 5. Are you telling a story, talking about your feelings, or what? A song can be primarily story-driven, feelings-driven or a combination of the two. Some songs tell a complete story from beginning to end, while other songs might just outline a particular moment in someone's life, with the backstory just implied. You could even use a series of seemingly unrelated scenes, or moments, to make some kind of point. Some songs talk of the writer's happiness or unhappiness (which might be either fictional or derived from real life). If the song is talking about feelings, then there are different ways this can work. You could say "I'm unhappy because my lover left me" - or you could write directly to your ex-lover: "I'm unhappy because you left me". Using the second approach will result in a more confrontational kind of lyric. 6. Even if you write a very "personal" sounding lyric, remember that the song doesn't have to be about you. You can always make up a character and write about them.

Good topic! Of course whenever I'm asked this question I always find it difficult to give a good answer. I do give quite a bit of emphasis to the lyrics, so I supposed I'm a bit influenced by Dylan, Costello and other "wordy" songwriters, but I'm also a keen fan of melodic pop songs - especially of the classic kind. I also like performers/writers who are iconoclastic - who do their own unique thing - so I like people like Tom Waits or Warren Zevon or Joni Mitchell, even if their musical styles don't have have much in common. Having said all that, I'm not much into people who "sound" like somebody else. If someone says to me, "You like Radiohead therefore you will like Artist X" then they are really talking to the wrong guy! I like people who are unique, not "more of the same". I don't have any particular "method" for writing songs. I don't always start with the melody first and then add words - or with the words first, adding the tune and chords later - I just do whatever works. That being said, I find it a little easier to write a lyric to a tune, so if I don't have a melody ready to go I will improvise something, or even "knick" one just to set the lyric to (writing a new original tune later). I like to work out the structure of the song very early in the process - I might only have half a verse and a section of the chorus - but I'll be planning to write three verses and a middle eight, with an extended variant of the chorus at end if that's the structure that "feels right". I find that songs are much easier to finish if I've got a good idea what I'm working toward - which doesn't mean I won't change my mind later about some part of the structure. Often when I start writing the lyric I might immediately think "This part would work better in the last verse" - so I end up writing the song backwards in cases like that. If I have a strong line in a verse I usually think "this should come at the end of the verse - as the climax of that section", so then I have something to build up to. So often I hear songs with a strong line followed by a weak line, or songs with a great first verse and then nothing of interest afterwards, which is what I am always trying to avoid! --Paul--

EMI is in a bit of trouble, but if Warner Bros, Sony and Universal are not still in the business of selling music at the end of this year I'll be very surprised. I remember a bold prediction about 2 years ago that said CDs would not be manufactured by 2010. Didn't happen. I bet Thom Yorke is wrong too. I'm so sure that I'll take bets.

My little homemade efforts, so far: http://www.youtube.com/user/thepopeofpop

As far as I know they go to publishing companies. There isn't any recognised marketplace on the web where unpublished writers can sell their stuff. Of course, you might want to check this thread: http://forums.songstuff.com/topic/14997-diy-music-copyright/