Improving Your Songwriting Skills

Let's face it - songwriting is not just an artform. It's also a craft. If it wasn't - a monkey could do it. Many artists visiting Fame Games are already excellent songwriters, but others only show potential which is yet to be fulfilled.

Amateurs often have a common argument against "learning" songwriting. It goes something like "you can't learn this thing, you're either born with it or you're not." Needless to say, and without much additional qualification, this is one of those "leave me alone I'm afraid to learn and fail" kind of arguments. You may be born with a special talent for something, but it will come to nothing without further development.

In my previous posts, and probably in some of the upcoming ones, I'll touch on some useful techniques for getting "more" out of your songs. There is an element of subjectivity in this, of course. But it's a bit like listening to someone speak. Some people bore you to tears even if the subject of their talk is very interesting. Others keep your attention even when they talk nonsense. We all have a radar in us which somehow knows what is "good" and what it not. We may differ on that point from person to person, but the overwhelming majority will tend to agree with each other at least on the general principle. It's just a fact of how our psychology works.

Some key points to keep in mind, when writing songs. And it's just a small sampling.

• Keep it real. Avoid meaningless and boring topics unless you really feel they need to be told.

• Keep it interesting. It may be just a key hook line or the entire lyric, it can be minimalistic or slightly wordy, but it needs to mean something to your listeners. Tell this story to a friend and see if he gets it. This doesn't have to be anything high-flying or philosophical. You may just want to write a song about partying and having fun with the opposite sex. But you can say it in a way which makes your listeners fall asleep - or you can put a smile on their faces.

• Ensure that the lyrics have a strong and balanced meter, and rhymes (if used) are strong and not banal. Don't "settle" for makeshift solutions. Make sure you know what your lyric "wants" to say and then find a way to express it. This will more often than not mean a LOT of revision.

• If your lyric has a good rhythm, so will your song. A well-written lyric virtually "sings itself." Many songs have "forced rhythms" - for example cases where a syllable is stretched unnaturally in order to make the rhythm work. This is not the same as extended syllables which are there for special effect or because they just need extra emphasis or styling. This is about those lines where the writer simply couldn't think of a way to make the phrase balance and he's cheating by stretching or contracting words until they fit. This technique CAN work, but all too often it comes across as simply amateurish.

• Learn about chordal progressions. Some progressions "flow" and are natural and some are... erm... challenging. Some progressions are so well established that they're known as "power chords" and you'd be surprised at just how many songs rely on them. The familiar C-Am-F-G progression works with children's melodies but it's also the basis of many classic hits. If arranged well (the right inversions, clever dynamics and rhythms) you might not even recognize it. Don't be afraid of using "standard" chord progressions, but do challenge yourself to ensure that they come across as fresh.

• Ensure that your melodies aren't "glued to the chords." Melodies which follow chords have been done to death in the past and any new song which uses that technique immediately sounds boring and dated, with few exceptions. Deliberately "flip out" some notes in your standard melody and see how the song gets transformed. Try your melody against different chords. Does it sound more interesting? But keep in mind that melody lines are like lyrics: you're always re-using familiar elements, but you need to put your own stamp on them. Between intervals, meter, rhythm and dynamics - and a bit of divine inspiration - you have all the tools you need to write something that nobody's heard yet.

• Push yourself. Subject your songs to analyses and cold-listens by unsuspecting strangers. Clock their facial expressions more than their words (which are often cautious compliments, even when they're not deserved). Find ways to write your songs so that the physical reactions you get become undeniably positive.

• Come up with tricks to improve your songwriting. One such "trick" isn't really a trick at all, but it can completely transform the way you write your music. Get another singer to sing your song. Not because they're "better" but because they're DIFFERENT. If you know a singer who's great get him or her to "interpret" your song. Try it with your melody line first, then ask them to just feel it and do their own thing with it. Then, get a "poor" singer to sing it. Watch him or her kill your song and unconsciously deliver a parody of it. The lessons you'll take away from this can be invaluable.

• Study other great songwriters. Note that songs by greats such as Lennon-McCartney, Elton John or Diane Warren survive decades and lend themselves to virtually any musical style. How did they do it?

• Always ensure that your demos are done properly. They can be simple or complex, "produced" or not - but the basic values need to be there. Strong confident instrumentation and vocal, "flowing" arrangement, hooks, little surprises - and a decent mix.

When reviewing demos, "the song" is always the biggest consideration. Given two songs, one of which is beautifully written but poorly produced, and the other hastily written but beautifully produced, all too often the latter will win out. This is because "production" is just another word for "presentation". We all know that it's not clothes that make the man and we shouldn't judge a book by its cover. But the fact still remains that first impressions are always going to be critically important. So have the depth and the content and all that - but also ensure that you grab their attention from the start with your craft - even if it's basic. "Basic" is ok, as long as it's "proper!"

Don't forget to check out my sub-blog "Write a Song About This"

Never Mind The Styles (Or: What Is Art?)

What's with all those genres? Country, hip-hop, rock, folk, etc... New artists often define their songs in those terms. "This is a country-style tune" they might say. And then you listen to it and discover that it sounds nothing like what YOU think of as "country." The world is full of hybrid songs which don't really belong in any clear box or category.

So what is it about those styles? What's in a name?

It seems to me that inasmuch as any of those labels convey any meaning, it must have something to do with "belonging" and by extension, with an "idea of belonging." Think of it like this. In the days when Western movies were king, young people everywhere idolized their gun-toting heroes, they wanted to be a little bit like them, and do what they did. The music those horoes listened to (or at least the soundtrack made you think so), was mostly Country & Western. It comes as no surprise, then, that this genre was doing really well in the mainstream back in those days.

But as cultural icons change, so does the music which accompanies them. Folk was the music of rebellious intellectuals who wanted to question everything. The likes of Bob Dylan or Leonard Cohen opened up popular music to meaningful lyrics. Rock in almost all of its early guises was the music of liberation and a break with convention. And so was punk and - perhaps even more so - hip-hop. All of these styles came from real environments and as the public-at-large learned to identify with them, the style would enter the mainstream consciousness new idols would appear and imitators would spring up like mushrooms after rain.

Many of the subsequent superstars were not, by any stretch of the imagination, the real thing. Was Johnny Cash a cowboy? Was Cliff Richard a rebel? Was Vanilla Ice a boy from the hood?

So, while the music by many contemporary artists may not be totally true to its roots, and is, for the most part, only a vague imitation of the originals, one must not jump to the hasty conclusion that it is therefore invalid or too derivative to be worth anything. In fact, it might even be quite the contrary. Do you have to be an astronaut to be able to imagine how he or she feels? Does it mean you aren't allowed to study astrophysics? Or at least to make "space" tunes? Do you have to live in the ghetto to empathize with those people's plight and later write a passionate song about it?

Clearly, no. In fact, we must remember that all art is just a synthesis of influences, and those influences can not only be widely divergent, but they can also be personal as well as imaginary. A song - or any piece of art - needs to be judged not so much on the "authenticity" of its originator but on the cohesion, poingnancy and beauty of its creation. Does it create something within the listener? Good art, good music, is completely capable of doing just that! In fact, it may even be the very definition of art, that unless it contains the power of creation within itself it isn't really art.

And what is it that good art might "create?"

Starting with provoked thoughts, vague or particular emotions, feelings of sadness, happiness, anger or joy, a wish to enhance the communication with others, or the wish to retreat and think some things over - that's what art is all about. And never mind the styles...!

Don't forget to read my newest sub-blog - "Write a Song About This!"

Makin' It - Part 99999.....

So how DO you make it as an artist in this world?

I'm not sure I can tell you anything beyond what you probably already know. You have to have superb songs, produced just right and you have to present yourself as an attractive (not necessarily "pretty") package. That's step one.

Then, you need to perform live and showcase your music in any way you can think of, premier among these outlets being your local radio - and other radio if you can get to it (tough one, I know!).

Next, you need to be in a community, be it your local musicians, music and media people or an online group. You need to be active, friendly and supportive of everyone you meet.

Furthermore, you need to invest some funds into your own promotion, be it newsletters, press releases, posters or merchandise - and ensure you start actively building your fan club. When you have an active database of a few thousand fans and you can pack a local venue, you need to start inviting the "right" music business people to come and check you out. And by that time you already need to be friends with music lawyers, A&R men and other artists. And, finally, you need a little bit of luck at each step of the way.

But most importantly, you need endless perseverance. That's not as hard as you might think, if you actually LOVE what you're doing. You'll need to secure some financial backup, of course (and that might be a night job somewhere), but if you persevere and never get daunted by setbacks, delays and critiques (all of which makes you better and stronger!), you will increase your chances tremendously.

But among all those do's and dont's the one thing that will ALWAYS stand out is THE SONG.

If you can write a GREAT song, you'll shortcut the above process by a factor of 1000. And THAT is why it's so important to write songs that are REAL and unique to YOU. But also structured cleverly enough for them to find a wide audience who understand what you're talking about and want to hear that message again.

Take the time it takes!

Ultimately, what wins out is well-organized TALENT THAT PERSEVERES... who has GREAT, TIMELESS songs!

Make sure you check out my sub-blog "Write a Song About This" - http://writeasongaboutthis.blogspot.com/

The Fallacy That Is A Hit Song

One of the things we do here on Fame Games is try to find a "hit song" among all the independent material submitted to us, and then push that along to our contacts in the industry, in the hope that some of our artists will be rewarded with lucrative deals! Wouldn't that be a perfect proof of concept for Fame Games! (We're now beginning now to slowly fulfill that dream...)

And yet, none of us support those cheesy manufactured "hits" written with only one goal in mind: to make money on a musical format for as long as possible.

We come from varied musical backgrounds. Even though some of us have been quite involved with some very successful artists, producers and managements where having "hits" was certainly never spat on, we are quite unanimous in our agreement that the creation of music must be organically driven and "real" and that contriving your arrangements against your instincts only so that they might have a chance of becoming "commercial hits" is a path of self-destruction - and it harms the public ears!

But we're also open to the reality of life. For an artist to be able to sustain themselves from their art, they need at least a degree of recognition. And this, quite often, means that their music must have "credibility." It must be well executed, it must deliver its message in the best possible way for the target audience it is aimed at, and... it must be a "hit" if it is to get the artist noticed. And for us, to have credibility as an A&R platform we must prove that we can indeed find the "best of the best." And only then will our artists truly stand to benefit from those efforts.

The way we think of a "hit" is a song which "hits you over the head" and makes you remember the particular artist. If you produce, listen to and "consume" music for a living, and in the quantities that we do, you soon develop a sense of what "connects" and what doesn't. Erm... except that we don't always agree. (Which is why we've spent years fine-tuning a system which is supposed to help us in making those decisions...)

When we recognized how futile it is to look for a "hit" song, we dropped that word from our vocabulary for quite a while, until... we got picked up by a major radio network whose affiliates didn't want to play unknown music! For them it's not enough that a song is "good." It's got to be a hit already. No, not "a potential" hit. A bona fide hit.

You can't believe the struggle it was for us to convince our reluctant affiliates that radio CAN help DISCOVER future hits (like it used to). We're still fighting this battle. As we reconize that giving our artists maximum exposure can only be helpful to the vast majority of them, we also recognize that we must meet our affiliates (and especially the undecided affiliates) half-way.

So we started using the slogan "Looking for the next big radio hit!"

What do you think? Does this work? What would you do differently, if anything?

Don't forget to check out my other blog "Write A Song About This!"

Swimming Against The Tide

The world of corporate music and radio is a frustrating one. For one thing, it's got absolutely nothing to do with "music" or "radio." It's all about the bottom line, supporting data, and business drivers.

If you're an idealist who just wants the world to be a better place, you're gonna have a little problem. For the world to hear you and graciously accept your message, you'll need the largest platform you can find. But when you finally find it, you'll discover that nobody wants to support you if your vision breaks any of the established paradigms. As if it wasn't hard enough already!

There are two main ways of having it your way.

Neither is guaranteed to work. In fact, both are nearly guaranteed to fail, but it's all we've got. The first way is to simply do what you do and disregard the opposition. If your goal and message are powerful enough, then enough people will get behind you and your music or ideas will eventually sweep the world and it will become a better place at long last. The second way is slightly more underhanded. You blend in with the establishment, establish yourself more and more, and when you're ready you start executing your noble agenda - eroding the system from within and the world becomes a better place at long last.

The trouble with the first method is that I can't at the moment think of anyone who's actually succeeded in it and is around to tell the tale. The trouble with the second method is that before you start breaking the rules, the system corrupts you and you become "one of them." For example, did you know that Alan Greenspan was an outspoken critic of the Fed and an ardent supporter of the gold standard? Until he joined them.

• Joining the elite in order to introduce change is a near-certain recipe for losing touch with your base.

• Going it alone is a near-certain recipe for alienating your base - because you're the lone nut after all!

So what gives? How can we achieve something better if none of the systems seem to work?

Perhaps we have something to learn from the spy business. And from Sun Tzu's Art of War . Or Machiavelli's. Double agents have infiltrated governments and organizations and have successfully managed to bolster the interests of their "base" (until they got caught). Couldn't we all become agents for change? Only trouble is... "change" without a precise definition can be pretty problematic. There has to be a definition of what "change" is "supposed to" mean. Perhaps it's best then if I finish by quoting Sun Tzu: "So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a thousand battles without a single loss."

What does all this have to do with music or radio? The sooner you find out, the sooner you can become part of the solution, and help move your dreams that much closer to reality.

Also check out my other blog Write A Song About This.

Check Out My New Sub-Blog

At DJ Crier's insistence (but otherwise quite willingly), I've started a different kind of blog. It deals with everything BUT music - and yet, it's all about looking for inspiration for writing songs...!

Check it out right HERE. And then... write a song about this!

If The People Lead - The Leaders Will Follow

A batallion of soldiers, all dug into their trenches, finding a measure of comfort in their relative safety. Now, here you are, another soldier just like them, but you notice something nobody else did. You notice that they’ve dug their trenches on the wrong side of the battlefield! So you call out to them. A bit late now, granted, but better late than never, you think. "Dudes! We gotta get outta there and dig them trenches right here where I am, okay? We're dug in the wrong place!"

One or two soldiers get up, look around and sure enough they see you're right. "Yeah, he's right" they say, but as they hear others grumble, they quickly sit down. "Who the hell are you to be ordering us around?" says one. "We were told to dig here and we're gonna stay here until we hear different!" says another. "You don't know what you're talking about man. If you were right, they wouldn't have made us dig here!" he adds. Pretty soon, other voices join in. Most of them hate the thought of digging new trenches or disobeying orders - and what if you're wrong? (although all they'd need to do to confirm you're right is just get up and look around).

Before long, you're hearing something different. This time it's about you... "What kind of a soldier are you, dude!" "He's a coward, that's what he is!" "He don't know nothin' about nothin'!" "He's trying to get us to move cuz he's an enemy plant!" “Nut!” "Traitor!"

If you can picture this, you will probably not fail to notice how similar this is to just about everything in life. You name it. Politics. Science. Archeology. Medicine. Business. Sports. Music. Name it.

That's the problem with being "alternative."

You're always an outsider. And you always have to deal with "entrenched" people. People who for reasons of their own have convinced themselves that their hole in the ground is the right place to be (even while they complain about how uncomfortable it is!). And it doesn't matter in the least whether you're right or wrong. Unless you're their general, chances are you'll never make them budge.

So what do you do?

If your opinion is important enough to you, you continue pushing your point. But all too often you'll be derided, ridiculed - or worse. If you're the lone dissenter, you're just "a nut" and they'll neutralize, punish or otherwise remove you from their sight. Nobody likes a trouble-maker.

So you start rallying people together. Pretty soon, you have a whole group of like-minded folks behind you, but… you soon realize that no matter how many support you, you're all still in the minority, and no change ever really happens. Not fast enough, that’s for sure.

Anyhow, you were persistent and you now have a bunch of other soldiers who think you're right. They too want to make a change. All of you are now beginning to talk to all the others, trying to convince them that change is necessary and it's time to move to the other side of the field. Grudgingly, many get almost-almost convinced, but they're still just sitting there, thinking about it.

Suddenly, another soldier gets up. Unlike you, he's powerful looking, full of charisma, outspoken. "People," he says. "Jim here is right. There IS something wrong with them trenches here! We need to change this situation! It's up to us! It's our lives, people! We need change!" You look around and to your amazement you see that most of the soldiers are beginning to stir. They're listening. "What do you mean dude?" asks one. "How do you see it?" "What do you think we should do?" "What kind of change, man?"

The charismatic leader looks around and starts painting a vision of how this change should be accomplished. "It's simple people. We need real change. Not chasing into the unknown, to the other side of the field...! We just need to dig a little deeper, see?" The soldiers are impressed. "How much deeper?" "A few inches deeper at least," says their new leader.

And you know what? They all agreed, and opted for this brand of change: don't change your position. Just dig deeper. Get more entrenched...!

I'm not sure if my slightly strained analogy works, but I'm guessing you can probably see where I'm going with this.

So how does this pertain to music, you may ask? What does this have to do with me as an artist, or as a listener? And what does it have to do with a program like Fame Games?

I'm so glad you asked that.

Turn on your radio. What do you hear? Is it crap? Mostly, yes. Switch the station. Same thing? Yeah. So you talk to others and soon you discover that almost nobody you know likes the radio all that much any more. How can that be? Radio used to be the bomb. Times have changed. But you like radio. You just don't like what they're playing! So you want to change it. You ask all your friends to call their local station and ask for something new. "How's about we ask our station to play some new music for a change?" But your pleas fall on deaf ears. Nobody cares enough to make that call. And so it's business as usual and the music just keeps on getting worse. Maybe it’s just you getting old….

So you turn to the Internet. It doesn't take very long to discover that you can easily find more of the same stuff you hear on the radio. But you can also hear loads of new music. Hurrah! Only trouble is that the vast majority of what all these music sites offer is not that great, not really well filtered or selected for lasting values and quality. It's mostly crap too, just different kind of crap. Hey, now you're beginning to realize what radio was supposed to be in the first place: they're supposed to filter stuff for you and help you discover new music. Kinda like reporters who tell you what's going on in the news. Ideally, without prejudice. You now wish there was something out there that would do that. You eventually find one or two local stations somewhere a few states away, but you wish the whole nation could be listening to this... So you call out for people to do something about it.

It's not happening.

And it's even worse if you're not just a listener, but also an artist, hoping to get your music out there, maybe even have a career, because you have a god-given talent and you worked real hard to get to where you are.

You very quickly discover that the music business paradigm doesn't like to change, be it radio or records. Sure, the Internet has forced it to change quite a bit. But not nearly as much as you're being lead to believe. It's all just surface stuff. You still need promotion, right? You still need deals - or if you wanna be independent, you'd still need your own money to pay your production and promotional costs, correct? Internet makes a lot of things way cheaper and easier, for sure, but the overall picture didn't change nearly as much as we'd all like. On top of it all the web is so tremendously crowded and the only way to break through is just like in the real world - with money (all the claims of "viral" marketing notwithstanding)...!

We got into radio by accident.

We're musicians just like all of our Fame Games artists and music lovers like all of our listeners. But along the way we got to be quite well “connected” and at some point we thought that this would make things easier for us. It didn't. Years later, in spite of many "great" names we could brag about that we've worked with, our artistic careers didn't move forward nearly enough. Eventually, we dropped the idea of looking for "deals" and we started trying to do it all independently. We started looking for independent distribution and promotion. Internet was the new thing, right? And that's where our eyes started opening.

Talk about entrenched opposition.

Whether you're talking terrestrial radio or Internet-based, the name of the promotional game is... getting a LOT of plays. Getting the so-called "rotational airplay" (i.e. the meaningful kind of airplay as opposed to a one-off somewhere) proved to be impossible. Or, I should say, not "impossible" but "impossibly expensive." If you're like we were back then, you probably think that Billboard hits get there because somebody thinks they're just great songs... Erm... Right.

Check this out: we've cross-referenced this with many consultants and companies. If you want to reach Billboard Top-100, and I mean just touch the bottom of the chart and not even dream of a #1 - you're not looking at anything less than $250k in initial costs. For real...! And the thing is that if you were to do this yourself, you'd still be at least $150k in the hole (but actually more because your time and travel, plugging to all the stations, promotions, representation, sustenance... all that would add up). And all that just to convince program directors ("PD's") to include your song in their playlists. And I'm not even gonna look at the (prevalent) scenario where most large stations won't even talk to you if you're not with a label, no matter how good your music is...

So once you find yourself armed with this all-too-real knowledge, you start yelling: "people, this has got to change. It's a rigged game!"

But hardly anyone listens...

So we founded Fame Games. A radio show with a catchy name that was gonna change all that by banding everybody together. We started out small. How else! We initially aired to a relatively large expatriate community in the South of Spain. This is one of the world's most popular tourist places, where 10 to 15 million mostly English-speaking tourists flock every year and all the Hollywood stars have their summer homes here. And many stay here for good (like us!) because you just can't beat this weather and the relaxed atmosphere and a sense of "freedom." So we had a good start. But… no real interest. To break through we had to aim for a larger market.

So, we decided that strength in numbers was the way to go. As soon as we announced Fame Games on the web the word of mouth started spreading. The show was soon inundated with artists wanting free airtime. Some of them were awesomely good but even so they didn't have record deals nor anywhere else to go...!

And so we decided to really elevate this show. If we wanted to have a chance in hell of succeeding, we had to get good. We started scripting, fine-tuning the show, rebuilding our site, strategizing, thinking out of the box... And slowly but surely the show kept improving (according to some anyway, lol) and after a few years of patiently building this thing, and nearly four million visits later, we managed to come to the attention of ABC Radio Networks.

For a while we thought we had it made. Syndication at last...! That's kinda like a record deal for an artist. Yeah...!

Not so fast.

Before we knew it, the radio world started looking eerily like the record world. We were "IN" - but only superficially... When affiliate stations looked at this program they would come up with ANY excuse not to take it. And the coinciding global crisis didn't help either.

Here are just some of the things they'd say after the initial "what a great idea for launching new music, we love this show...!" We heard stuff like: "It's great but not for our market, not for our station. You guys play too much music." Or "great show, but there's too much talk here and too many styles." Or how about these few quotes: "Too much hip-hop," "Too much rock," "Too much country," "Too much pop," "You guys play FOLK??" "The show is too British for American ears," (and the British affiliates would retort "The show is way too American for the Brits" And so on and on....! Until you hit the NUMBER ONE most often cited reason for why your local radio station doesn't want to play Fame Games: "Nobody knows this music!"

Excuse me! Isn't that the whole point? It will never become known if affiliates are afraid to carry it! And how does music become known anyway?

So, we continued tweaking and improving the format, trying to address everyone's concerns, but the affiliate objections didn't change. Pretty soon, we knew that there had to be more to this than met the eye. After a year with a major network we thought we'd be nationwide by now because NOBODY else is doing this on network radio, and just about everybody we ask says they’d LOVE TO listen to radio if something like this was on…! Instead, we only got picked up by a few dozen stations. If that! What is wrong with those people? Is it us? Is the format so unappealing? Is the music not good enough?

We were asking ourselves the exact same questions that all artists ask themselves when facing rejection after rejection. We were dealing with “entrenched mentalities” of program directors whose only job, it seemed, was to come up with reasons why they shouldn't change. They just "dug deeper!" And when we'd tune in to their stations we wouldn’t be able to tell one apart from the other.

They all sound the same! They all carry the SAME (major label) songs (rotated every 60 to 90 minutes), and all have the same uninspiring, tired old format. But THAT is what the PD's want in spite of the fact that the listeners are telling a different story altogether...! And then they wonder why radio is going down the tubes…! They're just like most record companies and their A&R men! They're just like... all entrenched individuals in this world...

Are we crazy? Or is everyone else mad?

Carl Jung once said "the foundation of all mental illness is the avoidance of legitimate suffering." So we knew we had to get through this somehow. It would make us stronger. We knew that our challenge is to survive and persevere - and come up with an intelligent plan. Nothing good is ever easy. It doesn't matter that there are MILLIONS of artists, a small part of whom we already represent, who WANT THIS. It doesn't matter that the PEOPLE really WANT something NEW on radio - and higher quality music selection on the Internet music sites for that matter too. What matters is that we haven't found the right strategy to overcome our opposition. And we had to find it or die.

As an artist, way back when, I looked to collaborations to improve my writing and producing skills, as well as networking to enhance my ability to pitch. So we now knew that we'd have to try something similar here as well.

And so we expanded our collaborations and partnerships (even managed to enlist a bona fide celebrity or two to help us push this concept), and we continued improving the show's content, tweaking the site and... burning money at an alarming rate. Just like a serious independent artist who's trying to run his career like a business, we knew that we had to find funding and incomes fast. Either that - or we'd have to pack it in, and the dream would die along with us.

Much easier said than done. You go out looking for support and as soon as you've "sold" them on your idea and just when you think they'll hand over some cash, you hear them talking about how everything that's most fundamental to you should be changed. "Let's commercialize this much more. Just play pop, okay?" or "Let's play major label music at least 50% of the time," or "Let's hire some professional DJs and programmers to make this more compatible with the rest of the US radio..."

Sometimes, even when you REALLY don't want to, you just have to say NO.

We faced many of those devil's alternatives... Sell out or perish. When you're up against the wall, the hungrier you get the more selling out seems like a pretty good way to go... Until you pinch yourself real hard and realize that by compromising your CORE VALUES you lose your EDGE and that all-important differential factor which is why they got interested in you in the first place!

And there's another analogy there. As an artist you're constantly told what to change and what to improve. The ability to distinguish between the technical and content issues is very important at that point. You should always be open to technical improvements. But be careful how far you bend when it comes to the core values of what you do. If you're too flexible, your music will soon sound like everybody else's - and they already have a lot of that! So, never forget who you are and who you WISH to always remain.

This applies to everything. But especially to artists. And forward-thinking radio shows too....

So what's all this rant really about?

I'll write some more about all that in my upcoming posts. We're starting a new phase here on Fame Games now. Season 5 with ABC/Citadel. We've introduced loads of changes and it looks like we've even managed to convince a major label or two to partner with us (without selling out!) and maybe, just maybe, a few major super-stations to affiliate with us.

We want YOU to succeed along with us, and prove our concept!

But we need and will continue needing support from everybody who's come to us here. Whether you're already a successful Fame Games artist, or whether your efforts on this show have (so far) been frustrated. Don't worry about that. Your time will come if you keep persevering. But in the meantime, reach out and help us change this whole business!

Help spread the word.

Get people to listen to the show and sign up as fans and/or artists. Call your local station many times and ask why the hell do they keep playing all that boring music when the real action is right here on this show? ABC says their affiliates resist the show because there's too much unknown music here! Challenge them on that! Because it’s not really “them…” It’s all up to “you” and ALL OF US.

The world is controlled by those who show up!

The Oldest Excuse In The Book

Rant time. ;)

Let's face it. We've all been guilty of this at one point or another: coming up with excuses why our music isn't as good as it should be. "I did it all in one take," "I had no time to spend on making it better," "I was very ill at the time," and the most prevalent of them all "I don't have the money to make it sound good!"

Now, all that is "fine" until it spills over to a secondary attitude which, if it goes unchecked WILL spell the end of your hopes and aspirations. It's when you start blaming everyone else even when it clearly doesn't make sense. "Their music is fake, but mine is real and that's why nobody will play it!", "Everybody I know loves my music, but radio won't play it because they're corrupt and don't know good music!" - and so on and on.

This doesn't mean that some of the sentiments expressed aren't in and of themselves true, but it does mean that you're now using that as a crutch, and a permanent excuse for simply not getting any better!

Now, it's one thing if you're a professional and are well and truly producing great music which is "blocked" by radio and records because it doesn't "fit" the current model. Any bitterness there is much more easily understood, if not entirely excused (though it must be noted that very few professionals ever actually talk like that!). But it's a whole different thing when a novice makes the same kind of comments! And even worse where they try to bolster their case by accusing anyone who's better of being "cheap," "commercial," "sellout," or just plain "crap!"

You know people like that? I bet you do. And I know that chances are that you too have been there yourself. As have I. But the lesson I have now been able to piece together from this is that it's a waste of energy and it functions as a very real show-stopper. People who are successful don't focus on the negatives, and they certainly don't go around blaming the world for being what it is.

I just got an email from a Fame Games member who just happened to receive a slightly negative review. In fact, it wasn't negative as much as it wasn't entirely positive. And off he went on a rant of his life... "Only cheap commercial crap artists have a chance of making it on this show," "my parents love my music and they stop and listen to what it could be! If only I had the money to produce it right.." and so on and on.

So I went and listened to his tracks. Well... indeed they had some promise, but the flaws in them weren't related to not having money. They were just sloppily recorded; unrevised lyrics, dull melodies, imprecise playing. Potential? Yea, I'm sure. But there's almost always potential. It's what you do with that potential that matters!

LISTEN TO: 230-Q/Wednesday Jul 08, 2009

Making The Most of MIDI Programming

There are loads of excellent MIDI manuals out there, so I won't restate and repeat the obvious. Instead, I'd like to briefly focus on some general techniques which will make your sequencer recordings feel more "alive."

As with everything in music, it's all about basic principles and approach, as much as learning how your particular programming tool works. I'm assuming you already know your sequencer very well.

The thing about sequencers is that they make so many things so much easier, that it's very easy to forget that music is a human endeavor! Functions like Quantize, time-stretch and autotune have made life a lot easier for musicians, but they're also responsible for allowing artists to take the easy way out exactly when the opposite is required.

So, here's a few general rules when working with a MIDI sequencer.

Treat is like a tape recorder. Resort to special tricks (e.g. quantize, etc) only when you absolutely must. Reserve it for certain parts only. It might be ok to have your hats and perhaps the kick to run quantized for much of your track, but don't overdo it.

PLAY everything live with your track. That kick pattern is supposed to be the same throughout? Ok. But PLAY it. Don't copy and paste. The little dynamic and timing variations that you'll encounter because you're playing it "live" can be hugely important to making your track interesting and "alive."

AVOID copying and pasting. Yes, it's a great tool when you want to make a quick model of a track. But when you get down to the final version, scrap all that and replay everything. And then quantize only the blatant mistakes, if any. Leave everything else as is.

If possible, introduce live instruments (i.e. not hooked up via MIDI) to your recording. Analog instruments respond differently to digital ones. An unquantized piano part played on your sampler will have a distinctly different feel to one played on that trusty old REAL piano.

DON'T change note velocities with global commands. In fact, assuming that you're at least a passable player, there should be no reason for you to change note velocities at all. Perhaps one or two manual adjustments, but never using automation.

Finally, try not to settle for presets. Yeah, I know. Some of those synths have such luscious, great sounds and they're so hard to resist. Okay. Go ahead and use the presets, but EQ them to suit the track. Unless you're making generic music, there's no way a generic preset will stand "as is", no matter how great it sounds in isolation.

I guess the bottom line is, no matter what type of music you're making, human feel is essential. Even club/dance music benefits from REAL playing. In fact, the best dance producers do exactly as described above. No Grammy was ever awarded to a machine. Was it...? Erm... I better not go there. ;)

LISTEN TO: 230-Q/Tuesday Jul 07, 2009

Make Your Lyrics Count

If your first reaction is "what business does a producer have poking his nose into my lyrics?", then you're not alone. Many artists don't realize that whether they themselves are the producer or whether they get someone else to do it, the name of the game is getting the product right. And that includes the lyrics if we're talking about a song.

But aren't lyrics supposed to be spontaneous poetry, art..?! Sure. Just like your song and everything else you do! But when you're done with the initial creative process, just make sure that you proceed to craft your lyrics as well as you can.

So, are there any general guidelines? Yep. First and foremost, no matter if your lyric is about something profound or mundane, fun or sad, dreamy or humorous, it's got to be "real." What this basically means is that it's got to be something that you would say, and others would understand and relate to. Additionally, it should be said succinctly and in such a way that your listener might say "that's exactly how I'd say it!"

So how do you go about something like this? One size doesn't fit all, unfortunately, and you'll find that many songwriters use different techniques. But all the good ones have one thing in common: they revise and polish until they're happy with it!

Let's look at a hypothetical example. Say you want to write a song about your experience of losing your girlfriend/boyfriend. First, ask yourself how it made you feel, and write that down. So you might write "She left me when I least expected it, and it completely surprised me and I still can't get over it." Very good. But... is this a lyric?

Some might argue that it is. And, indeed, it "might" be. But what if you could come up with a way to say the same thing with fewer words? Wouldn't you rather? Perhaps you would, and if so, read on. For example, you can see that in the above line, "surprise" is redundant, since you already wrote "I least expected it". So, why repeat yourself? Thus you could re-write it using only one of the two expressions without losing the meaning, right? Perhaps "She left me when I least expected it and I still can't get over it." Better. So... is this a lyric now?

Again, some might say that it is, but you should ask yourself "is it a GOOD lyric?" Is it something original, and am I the only one who might say it in this particular way? I know, I know. It's a tough one. If your heart tells you that this is it, then by all means, accept it as it stands. But... perhaps you could think of a "smoother" way to express this? How about "I didn't know she was leaving, my heart is bleeding"? Hmm, that's certainly a different way of saying the same thing. But is it better? Perhaps it's too dramatic for your personality? Or not dramatic enough? Or it sounds too clichéd? And so, you keep on tweaking it, until it's "you."

Once you manage to get your lyric down to a "punchy" or "strong" short sentence, which is both "natural" and yet still "poetic", start thinking in terms of the intended rhythm. Count the syllables. Get it to feel POWERFUL. With enough revision and an attitude that doesn't settle for anything less than "excellent", you will arrive at a lyric which will convey power and emotion in just the right way.

A great lyric will help you write and arrange your song that much better. Because if you think of your lyrics as "okay" or "throwaway", where will such thinking stop? Will your melody be perfect even when your lyric sucks? Will your progressions, arrangement, mix, production follow suit?

Take your time! Lyrics can make up a full 50% of the song experience. Or more! Think of some of the best songs you know - ever. Chances are they have words that you can still repeat by heart and you cherish and understand them.

That's how you should aim to structure your songs too!

LISTEN TO: 230-Q/Monday Jul 06, 2009

Extreme EQ

Whether you produce your music electronically, on your computer, or in a more traditional setting, one of the most important considerations is the way your music sounds. This is, to a large extent down to the gear you use, but you will have noticed that the thousands of, say, guitar-bass-drums bands still manage to come up with their "own sound." Even though they seemingly use the exact same instruments! The same applies to music which relies more on synths and special effects. How is it that this pro band which uses the same synths you have has so much cooler sounds?

Well, it comes down to knowing your instrument, any plugins or effect units and... more often than not: a few very simple mixing tricks.

You can do an enormous lot of sound tweaking using just about any semi-decent mixer. You can shape each individual sound with just EQ to a far greater extent than most musicians realize. And if you're working on a computer, the possibilities are endless even without any of those expensive sound plugins installed. You just need a simple sound editor. We'll get into this some other time.

Here, I just wanted to draw you attention to a very simple technique which is so often overlooked: Extreme EQ.

With a mixer, you might only be using the treble and bass knobs/sliders - most musicians unfamiliar with mixing stop there. If they touch the mids, it's only tentatively. But try some extreme settings for that guitar or piano. If you're rapidly changing the mid-EQ settings while an instrument is playing you'll immediately notice the familiar "filtering" effect, so popular these days in dance music. (You can get plugins which actually do this "knob-twisting" automatically). And you'll notice that these extreme settings can completely change the character of the individual sound you're processing. Don't shy away from such experimentation. You might be shocked at just how much a sound can change with "creative EQ." The same goes for gates or compressors. Try some extreme settings and watch your sounds change character.

LISTEN TO: 229-Q/Wednesday Jun 29, 2009

You ARE The Producer

So what is a producer anyway? Do I need one? Can anyone become one?

Let's deal with this one by one, from the back. Yes, almost anyone can become a producer, but the focus this requires means that only a few people ultimately do. And yes, you do need one - even if it's going to be you. And this brings me to the main question: what does a producer do?

You'll find many different answers to this question if you read music business books, or depending on whom you talk to in the music circles. But there's one common thread: the producer is the person who creates the "product." Hence the name. And the "product" is, in a nutshell, your music.

An artist or a songwriter can be, and often is, also a producer. However, it's sometimes a good idea to work with an objective outsider who can help you craft your music (art) into a commercially viable recording (product). And this is what "production" is all about.

So, when you think about it, in order for the "product" to be good, it has to undergo a "quality control" process, which is the essence of production. That's also why I said that "anyone" can become a producer, but only those with sufficient focus actually manage the job. Because the kind of focus required to be a "good" producer can be quite intense.

There are at least two basic types of producers out there. There's the "hands-on" kind and the "ears-only" kind. These days, the first kind is by far the most predominant. That's the guy who is, typically, an experienced engineer or perhaps a songwriter/musician who's been around the block a few times and knows what it takes for a recording to find an audience. The "ears-only" producer is, these days, more of a dying breed - and that's someone who basically just listens to the music and gives (sometimes very vague) instructions to his team members regarding what changes need to be made for a song to "happen."

Both kinds of producers draw on a multitude of skills, whether they themselves are so multi-talented, or whether they have a team of collaborators. They essentially DIRECT the project, down to the minutest detail.

It is not uncommon for a producer to be "everything" on a record, except for the performer him- or herself. Sometimes this leads to rather outrageous situations and accusations of "manufacturing" talent start flying.

In this post, however, we're talking about a "mindset" which is a must for and serious producer.

One of the characteristics of a good producer is the ability to cut through the clutter and bring forth the best values of any song as well as any musician and artist involved in its creation. Like a movie director or a book editor. It's not uncommon for the producer to request lyrical changes, or melodic tweaks or rearrangements. Nothing is off limits, nor should it be. Not infrequently, a producer will actually cowrite large parts of any album he is a part of. And as long as you believe in his or her "grand vision" that's perfectly okay. Troubles only begin when the artist starts feeling that the producer steps on "his" or her "exclusive" territory.

This is just an outline of what the producer does, but the real idea in this post is to bring your attention to the simple FACT that, as an independent artist, you really have almost no choice but to become your own producer. Easier said than done. But... once you realize that it's just a "mindset" that you need to adjust, things become easier.

It's all in the "programming" you've subjected yourself to. If you think that you're "just a songwriter," and "someone else" will have to produce your music, you're most likely heading nowhere fast. You NEED to change this attitude to "I will produce my music to the best of my ability" - and that will include going through EVERYTHING with a fine-tooth comb, until everything in your song is exactly right.

That's why I said that this is a "mindset" thing as much as anything else. That's why an "ears-only" producer can actually do a great job, as long as he's a real taskmaster and has a clear, strong vision. Once you adopt this kind of a mindset, you'll, naturally, also need the technical and artistic skills to execute your own commands and recommendations.

What a producer does, when faced with an inability on part of his artists (or himself) to deliver what he wants to hear, is either modify his requests to suit, or... employ session musicians, singers, engineers - whoever is needed to get the job done.

A good producer, like any good artist, NEVER COMPROMISES his vision of quality.

Take "you" as your own producer. You "hear" your new song in your head and then you record it. And you quickly discover that it doesn't sound quite the way you envisioned it. Do you (a) do "whatever it takes" to make the recording match your imagination, or (b) you settle for the best you could do under the circumstances...?

Well, if you answered "a", you're already a producer. If you answered "b" you need to give your mindset a little shake-up and reconsider your entire position. Chosing the "a" path will lead you to a measure of success, if you persevere. Chosing the "b" path will lead you exactly nowhere.

One final point. You'll wonder if the "a" path is realistically attainable to you. Do you really have the ears and the judgment needed to be a great producer? Well, the truth is that you'll never know until you really try. And another truth is: perhaps you can't be a great producer, but you CAN decide to work with one! And if you're serious about your music, getting better or working with better people is not a choice. It's an imperative.

LISTEN TO: 229-Q/Tuesday Jun 29, 2009

Catching Their Attention

You know the old saying "you don't get a second chance to make good first impression?"

Thankfully, it's not like that on Fame Games, but it's a valid observation in general. If you deliver a great song and production, your listeners will be looking forward to your next one, often with anticipation. Will it be just as good? Better? Nah, it won't be just as good... but let's hear it!

Similarly, if your first submission is mediocre, your listeners will tend to want to skip over your next one. But some might listen for the same reason as above only this time they'll want to see if you've improved.

And now, another consideration. Many listeners only listen to a new song for the first 30-45 seconds. A minute, max. And then they switch. If the first impression was good, however, they'll come back and listen in full. This is a clear pattern we often observe here on Fame Games.

So, how do you ensure that your song will catch your listener in such a short time? And doesn't this imply some sort of cheap commercialism..?

Let's deal with the easy part first. There's nothing cheap or pejoratively commerical about keeping your music interesting and well arranged. Attention to detail and considering your listeners' perceptions is a sign of a mature artist.

But what about the important part? What can you do to keep their interest?

The answer will vary from person to person and from song to song. But there are certain general principles which, if you keep them in mind, will serve you well. Put in the very simplest way, you either have to have a GREAT song or a GREAT production - or... have BOTH.

A great song is one where the whole structure, from lyrics to the melody to the chords, is "just so" - it's natural, fresh yet vaguely familiar, meaningful and "real." It can be happy or sad, light or deep, but it has to have that sense of "having a flow." Few songs are "born that way." Most require a lot of additional tweaking and revision. ALWAYS take the time it takes to make the song itself RULE. Use just one instrument to develop it. If it's great acoustically, it's probably gonna be great fully arranged.

A great production is a more complex question. A production, by definition, also includes the song itself. But in the sense I'm intending here, it's all the arrangement, recording, performance and mixing work that goes into delivering the final product. And with that in mind, you'll need to keep one thing in mind: production serves the song - and only rarely is it the other way around. This is certainly true if your goal is to create something that lasts.

Still, the most important aspects of a production (besides a great song), come down to this:

• Record your band tightly (or if you're sequencing, ensure it's tight and feels "played" - not "sequenced").
• Ensure that all parts are exactly right, interesting and well-played. But don't get too fancy unless you're a virtuoso!
  
• Focus extra special attention on the vocal. Polish it, do as many takes as are necessary to deliver the best possible performance.
• Arrange your whole song from a minimalist perspective. Keep it simple. Only add sounds when the song "screams for it." Don't clutter your arrangement unneccessarily and ensure that the arrangement "breathes." Remember the power of well-placed silence.
  
• Ensure that the sounds you're using, be it a simple acoustic guitar or a complex arrangement, have a "healthy" ring to them. Avoid old and tired sounds, unless they are a feature of your production.
• And finally, mix everything in a way where you'll be able to hear every instrument in the mix clearly, with the voice cutting through in exactly the right proportion.
• Make sure your production screams COMMITMENT!
  

In your arrangement, ensure that you plant sufficient "hooks" (don't confuse this with a strong chorus which, too, is a kind of hook!), to keep re-engaging your listener. A hook can be anything from a quirky-sounding guitar or a drum, to a little run-up on a piano or a transition or a break, or a special effect, or a sound drop-out, or a word in a song delivered in a particularly "hooky" way, or a particularly special chord progression. Anything that's... erm... hooky!

And keep intros to a minimum, especially if all they do is repeat the same thing without contributing anything new with each passing round. Some songs need elaborate and long intros, for sure, but avoid UNNECESSARY repetition.

If you're able to deliver to such exacting standards, your music will not only command people's attention and get you loads of respect, but it just might put some food on your table as well!

LISTEN TO: 229-Q/Monday Jun 29, 2009

The Element of Surprise

Ever since we've been children, we always loved surprises. It is, in fact, an integral part of our human spirit to always look for something new, exciting and... surprising.

On the other hand, we're also reassured by the "safe" and "familiar." Those experiences in our lives which have the "right" balance of familiarity and surprise are the ones we are the most fond of.

And this is definitely also true of our music discovery.

Why do we fall in love with a song? What is it that makes us want to play it again? The answer is by necessity a complex one, but it really boils down to what I said above: the right mix between the surprising and the familiar.

With this in mind, the challenge for any serious artist is to create an arrangement which addresses these two concerns. And it really is an "arrangement" question more than purely a songwriting one. Although it can be both.

"Surprise" is the ultimate "hook" in a song. But watch out: overdo it at your peril. You might make something so surprising so as to become unfamiliar, and therefore "too demanding" - and in case of mainstream audiences, it's the last thing you want. Sad, perhaps, but true ;)

Refer to my previous posts about arranging and the use counterpoint, and this is essentially what I'm thinking about here. When arranging your song, keep this in mind. Don't just play it safe and do what is comfortably predictable. Strech yourself just a bit. Fall back on familiar elements, but also always have a pleasant surprise awaiting your listeners.

But a word of caution: a "contrived" (unnatural) surprise may work against you...!

Ultimately, how you deal with this is a matter of taste. It's how you make your life's experience to bear on your production. Know yourself and you'll know the world. And keep this keyword in mind next time you work on a song!

LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Wednesday Jun 24, 2009

Revision - The Power of Conciseness

When arranging your songs, always aim for conciseness of delivery. Think about talking. You can beat about the bush or you can get straight to the point. Sure, there are times where getting straight to the point may not be the best way. But most other times it really is the only way.

And this definitely applies to much of popular music.

In order to be musically concise, you need to revise. We all know that a fresh idea that we wish to share with friends will take us longer to talk about and "flesh out" than an idea we're already very familiar with, one we have talked through many times and can now present it in a brief, punchy, powerful way. In this case the process of "revision" was "natural" and unforced. You just kept talking about a certain thing and with each retelling you got tighter and tighter.

In music, the process is the same, but often requires a more concentrated and deliberate effort. And it applies to melodies as much as lyrics. In fact, it applies to everything from arrangement to vocal and instrumental parts to the final production.

One of the biggest hurdles to achieving concise results tends to be our attitude towards our ART. For some inexplicable reason, many of us feel that writing requires genius and that genius is spntaneous - and we're the spontaneous genius...

But if you think about it, this attitude reeks of arrogance. It implies that we feel that whatever we do on the spur of the moment is perfect! Upon reflection, most of us will agree that it isn't really so and it's not what we meant when we said "spontaneous is best." OK. But hold on. Before we start splitting hairs, we can easily agree that perhaps a second take or another look at those lyrics or melody is "acceptable." And if you push us, perhaps three times...

All right. So we're just looking at a question of degree - not the principle.

So here's the deal. The secret lies in the DEGREE to which you're willing to subject your creations to revision. But beware: some of us are very compulsive. I've known many talented writers who just didn't know when to stop and consequently virtually castrated their inpired ART down to something lifeless and sterile.

As with everything in life, common sense is your ally. Work that lyric or tweak that melody for as long as your energy level is high. Stop when you're feeling that it begins to wane. Go out and clear your ears. But make sure to come back to it. Allocate a finite amount of time to each tweak. At one point you'll just have to move on, and resolve to "get it right" next time. But never give in without at least trying to maximize your effort.

So, how long should it take to revise each component of a "typical" song? If you can answer the question "how long is a piece of string?" then you know the answer. It all depends. But I can give you a couple of typical examples.

In a typical writing session in my experience, the barebones of the song (basic melodic and chordal idea, at least partial lyrics) can take anything from a few minutes to maybe an hour. That's assuming that you're an experienced writer. A basic arrangement of this, meaning assigning parts to instruments and getting a "first listen" can take another hour to two hours if you're dealing with experienced musicians, or if you're good with your sequencer. A listen-through will confirm whether you're on the right track and whether the raw song evokes the kind of feelings you had when you wrote it.

And now revision must start in earnest. A typical lyric may endure 30 or 40 rewrites. Naturally, now and then you'll hit on the "right" idea much sooner, but be prepared to do 50 re-writes! And be happy if you arrive at the "optimal" version in less than that. A melody line may take multiple rewrites too. Often the core melody is just right, but "flipping out" a note here or there or coming up with an alternative line in a part of the song will take you a good couple of hours as well. The same will apply to all instrumental performances. Unless you want your rhythm guitar to just strum a boring 1-2 pattern you'll have to arrange its part so that it flows. Perhaps each chord should have a couple of steps built in to take it to the next chord, etc. All that needs planning - and revising.

All told, a "typical" song can take a good 3 days to "get right" on the arrangement and writing side. You can then take another day for recording it (with multiple re-takes until it totally shines!), and finally give yourself a couple of days to get the mix down. So... a week. That's about right.
No. This does NOT make you sound lame. A week dedicated to a song is, in fact, quite skimpy. DON'T FALL for those stories of "we got this down in 15 minutes in a live session." This CAN happen once in a blue moon, but don't program yourself for that. And it's not evidence of anything other than a bit of good fortune. Genius is measured by RESULTS - not by the time it took to get there!

The famed band "Boston" used to take up to 4 years per album...! Excessive? Perhaps, lol. But each one of their albums enjoyed multiple platinum sales and each one was hailed a "classic." And nobody even cares that their last album took not 4 but 6 years to complete!

No, I'm not advocating this kind of extremely obsessive production cycle. I too think it's nuts! But if you can help it, NEVER predetermine how long a song will take you to produce. It will be done when it's done. This power tip is actually a SHORT-CUT. If you spend MORE time on doing GREAT music, your chances of "making it" will grow expenentially. If you spend less time on producing a lot of half-baked music, you are GUARANTEED to get nowhere.. very slowly.

Oh, and I KNOW I could have been much more concise in this post! ;)

LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Tuesday Jun 23, 2009

Why Does It Sound Dated?

If you're a "traditionalist" musician, you probably believe that your music should reflect the values of your idols, be they from the 60's, 70's or whatever. You then write and produce your own songs in that spirit... only to hear this one most dreaded quip: "DATED!"

With that one little word, your labor of love is written off and swept under the rug.

What do you do? Some of you shrug it off and carry on regardless. Others get frustrated and increase their hatered of all that "over-commercialized crap," and walk away believing themselves to be right and everyone who doesn't agree - wrong.

Is there a right or wrong? Not really, when it comes to the ART of songwriting. But when it comes to the PRODUCTION of music, there are objective observations which are neither "right" nor "wrong." They just are.

So, yes, there IS such a thing as a dated sound. Put on something from the 40's or 50's. Can you honestly say it sounds "current?" (This NEVER means that it's "not good" - only that it clearly sounds like it's from another era)

OK. So you'll have no major problems agreeing that there exists such a thing as a virtual "time-stamp" on music. It's easy to tell the difference when comparing something "modern" with something as old as 40 or 50 years. But what about stuff which is only a few years old? Well, it gets a bit more subtle then. But, again, keen observation will reveal the differences.

Some of those differences start out as simple fads (this kick sound is "in" and that snare sound is "out!"). Others are a more organic evolution. Instruments change and evolve, special effects sound different, mixing techniques change too and even the overall production values change (here's a pretty good comparison: think of a movie from 30 years ago and compare it to something from "today" - even the acting is different, not to mention the way they shoot or light their scenes!).
It's no use complaining about it. Things change. And the only thing that remains is whether you care or not. If you don't - great. But if you don't care about that and yet still would like to win a NEW audience for your music, then you'll have a bit of a steep hill to climb.

If you do care at least enough to find a compromise position between what you believe and what "is needed" to "connect" with new audiences, then here's some food for thought.
What is it that "dates" a piece of music? Sounds? Production? Sure. Who wouldn't be able to accurately identify anything from the 80's with its prominent (some might say "cheesy") synth sounds and electronic drums.

But there's another, perhaps even more important aspect. It's the melodic and chordal structure of a song. Observe how that has changed over the years. Certain types of melodies often come across as "old-fashioned" where changing only one note here or there, might suddenly give it a "new" feel. Go figure! The same goes for chords and the way the melody relates to them. Melodies lead by chords are almost always viewed as "dated" and "uncool" (that where when the chord goes up or down and the melody line predictably follows it). It's because we're by now so utterly familiar with progressions and melodies of this type that we can practically sing along with any such "new" song which utilizes this kind of structure.

The late 90's and much of the 21st century has seen a resurgence of more "organic" and "natural" sounds. In rock you'll hear many more songs totally devoid of synths (because they tend to be so easily dateable!), with straight acoustic drums, and just solid "old-fashioned" values. And yet... if you hear one of those seemingly traditionally-arranged songs, you'll just KNOW that it's NOT an oldie. And when you stop and think why, you'll discover that it's mainly about melody and (often less elaborate) chord progressions.

And there's one other thing: vocal performance. Here too you'll find subtle changes. In the old days "over-singing" (read: too much drama! lol) was commonplace and even frequently "expected." Today, it's soooo uncool to do that. Make it "too dramatic" and modern ears tend to switch off. The "modern" trend is towards more "natural" melodies and deliveries. They should almost sound like they're "spoken," in some modern genres at least. But not quite.
It's subtle. Aware of all this, have another listen to some of what's going on in the music scene today. You'll find that there's room for your "old-fashioned" music in today's marketplace - with only a few small tweaks. And then go ahead and make those tweaks!

And the best part? You might even enjoy it!

LISTEN TO: 228-Q/Monday Jun 22, 2009

It's Not A Bakery. Take The Time It Takes!

Here's a more general observation rather than a "tip." But it's nonetheless one of those things that bear repeating. It's all about paying attention to detail. Your success depends on it.

The devil is always in the detail. "Almost great" will never be "GREAT." This applies to everything from you songwriting, to your arrangements to playing, performances, mixing and the overall production of your music. Pursuit of excellence is what drives every true artist.

What does it cost you to get your bass player and drummer to play in perfect synch on a particularly difficult part? An hour? A day? Whatever it is, it's a finite period of time. Take that time. It will be worth it. If you don't - you'll await "success" for YEARS, and chances are you'll never reach it.
But saying that attention to detail is critically important is a truism and it also sounds kinda nitpicky and boring to many artists who believe that "spontaneity" is the essence of art. DON'T fall for this without thinking about it first.

Art lives in the moment. It's personal. It's that "something indefinable" which makes it what it is. Art exists is in the process of creation. The rest is craft and process of production! And only through that can others experience it too!

A true artist is a real task-master and a QUALITY CONTROLLER.

You probably know that it's easier to tell others what to do than do it yourself. Other people's mistakes are much more easy to spot! ;) You need to develop the ability to "step outside of yourself" to notice the same things about your own work. And then find a way to get yourself not to settle for "okay."

The moment you adapt this attitude (and it takes a little time to really get your head around it), your future will change for ever.

LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Wednesday Jun 17, 2009

How To Place A Vocal In The Mix

In one of my previous posts I looked at EQ'ing the voice by finding the right "pocket" for it. This time, let's talk about another aspect of vocal placement which combines level-setting, panning, double-tracking and special effects.

You'll probably have noticed that different styles of music feature sometimes vastly different approaches to the way vocals are mixed. In some styles, the vocal must be the most prominent foreground sound; in others, it rides just slightly above the mix, and in others still, it's "sunk" in the mix so as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the music - and yet it's there, and you're hearing it (perhaps because it's panned or doubletracked - or through some other witchcraft!).
How you mix your vocal is largely a matter of convention and style, but it's also a function of the vocal characteristics of your singer. Needless to say, also, the vocal is there to be heard and lyrics understood (in most cases, lol), so a key consideration is making sure that your mix preserves the message well.

It's very easy to "lose" the vocal in the mix. And to make matters worse, it's not just the "too quiet" ones that get lost. Overpowering vocals can not only "get lost" - they can make you switch off entirely. (Don't believe me? Go to any karaoke bar and hear how much louder the vocals tend to be than the backing music! Close the door after you leave please!)

So, how do you mix a vocal?

OK. I can only give you a few general guidelines in the confines of this space. The KEY is to realize the relationship that exists between the vocal character and the instruments selected to back it. For example, you need to consider whether a raspy vocal backed by a distorted guitar wants to "sink in" or "bounce off" the backing track, and which EQ bands to reserve for each. The same song performed by two different vocalists may be mixed entirely differently, depending on the vocal characteristics.

First establish the genre you're in. For most pop music the voice must "ride on top of the mix" meaning that it should have a clear EQ pocket for itself and a level placement which gives it a small edge over the rest of the track. Something in the area of +1dB might be the rule of thumb. For some rock styles as well as a lot of dance music the voice wants to "sit" in the track becoming something like an instrument within it, and to give it definition you really need to resort to EQ techniques, double-tracking, gentle chorusing and such. In R&B it's become a fashion to have the vocal really out in front, almost entirely dry. So, knowing these general rules, you can now approach your mix.
One of the most important ways to "place" a vocal in the mix (not just vocal, mind you) is by a skillful application of the reverb. Assuming you have a reasonable quality reverb (ideally with output to a stereo track where you can re-EQ it if need be), you use it to give the voice a placement within the mix "as if in 3D." Experiment with that. More reverb (without changing the source level) will make the voice appear to "go back" in the "room." Next, decide on the length of your reverb. "Wet" sounding voices sound great in some types of mixes but totally ruin others. Again, you need to know the general direction of your track to establish the general principle which you can now adapt to your specific mix.

A critically important thing is TIMING your reverb. Many modern plug-ins do this automatically for you, but even then they will use a preset which you still would have to adjust. Should the reverb have a 600 millisecond setting or 300 - or even 150? (i.e. which beat in the bar it should end on in a track running at, say, 120 bpm). This is, of course, a function of the tempo of your track. If your track runs at 120 bpm but your reverb is timed for a 90 bpm track, the result will be a "sloppy" sound.
Applying special effects (like reverbs, choruses, delays, etc) can indeed bring out the vocal presence and character, just as long as you don't over-do it! Gating can also be used very successfully to "define" the vocal particularly in certain rhythmic styles of music, as can compression. In fact compression is a bigger subject which I think I'll address in another post.
The general principle in mixing a vocal is to build the mix in such a way that it's sound compliments and supports the vocal sound. That's why the same track done with a female singer may need a re-EQ on some instruments such as keyboard or guitar, if those particular frequencies compete with the vocal. The same mix with a male singer might suddenly need a bit more edge on the rhythm guitar or that bass.

How do you know? Well... it's all about the ears. So LISTEN to other similar mixes and learn from them. Knowing the above general principles, however, should be enough to give you a good start and a recognition of those elements in professionally-done mixes!

LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Tuesday Jun 16, 2009

How To Place A Vocal In The Mix

In one of my previous posts I looked at EQ'ing the voice by finding the right "pocket" for it. This time, let's talk about another aspect of vocal placement which combines level-setting, panning, double-tracking and special effects.

You'll probably have noticed that different styles of music feature sometimes vastly different approaches to the way vocals are mixed. In some styles, the vocal must be the most prominent foreground sound; in others, it rides just slightly above the mix, and in others still, it's "sunk" in the mix so as to be barely distinguishable from the rest of the music - and yet it's there, and you're hearing it (perhaps because it's panned or doubletracked - or through some other witchcraft!).
How you mix your vocal is largely a matter of convention and style, but it's also a function of the vocal characteristics of your singer. Needless to say, also, the vocal is there to be heard and lyrics understood (in most cases, lol), so a key consideration is making sure that your mix preserves the message well.

It's very easy to "lose" the vocal in the mix. And to make matters worse, it's not just the "too quiet" ones that get lost. Overpowering vocals can not only "get lost" - they can make you switch off entirely. (Don't believe me? Go to any karaoke bar and hear how much louder the vocals tend to be than the backing music! Close the door after you leave please!)

So, how do you mix a vocal?

OK. I can only give you a few general guidelines in the confines of this space. The KEY is to realize the relationship that exists between the vocal character and the instruments selected to back it. For example, you need to consider whether a raspy vocal backed by a distorted guitar wants to "sink in" or "bounce off" the backing track, and which EQ bands to reserve for each. The same song performed by two different vocalists may be mixed entirely differently, depending on the vocal characteristics.

First establish the genre you're in. For most pop music the voice must "ride on top of the mix" meaning that it should have a clear EQ pocket for itself and a level placement which gives it a small edge over the rest of the track. Something in the area of +1dB might be the rule of thumb. For some rock styles as well as a lot of dance music the voice wants to "sit" in the track becoming something like an instrument within it, and to give it definition you really need to resort to EQ techniques, double-tracking, gentle chorusing and such. In R&B it's become a fashion to have the vocal really out in front, almost entirely dry. So, knowing these general rules, you can now approach your mix.
One of the most important ways to "place" a vocal in the mix (not just vocal, mind you) is by a skillful application of the reverb. Assuming you have a reasonable quality reverb (ideally with output to a stereo track where you can re-EQ it if need be), you use it to give the voice a placement within the mix "as if in 3D." Experiment with that. More reverb (without changing the source level) will make the voice appear to "go back" in the "room." Next, decide on the length of your reverb. "Wet" sounding voices sound great in some types of mixes but totally ruin others. Again, you need to know the general direction of your track to establish the general principle which you can now adapt to your specific mix.

A critically important thing is TIMING your reverb. Many modern plug-ins do this automatically for you, but even then they will use a preset which you still would have to adjust. Should the reverb have a 600 millisecond setting or 300 - or even 150? (i.e. which beat in the bar it should end on in a track running at, say, 120 bpm). This is, of course, a function of the tempo of your track. If your track runs at 120 bpm but your reverb is timed for a 90 bpm track, the result will be a "sloppy" sound.
Applying special effects (like reverbs, choruses, delays, etc) can indeed bring out the vocal presence and character, just as long as you don't over-do it! Gating can also be used very successfully to "define" the vocal particularly in certain rhythmic styles of music, as can compression. In fact compression is a bigger subject which I think I'll address in another post.
The general principle in mixing a vocal is to build the mix in such a way that it's sound compliments and supports the vocal sound. That's why the same track done with a female singer may need a re-EQ on some instruments such as keyboard or guitar, if those particular frequencies compete with the vocal. The same mix with a male singer might suddenly need a bit more edge on the rhythm guitar or that bass.

How do you know? Well... it's all about the ears. So LISTEN to other similar mixes and learn from them. Knowing the above general principles, however, should be enough to give you a good start and a recognition of those elements in professionally-done mixes!

LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Tuesday Jun 16, 2009

Working with a Professional Engineer

If you're planning to design your dream home, chances are you'd feel a lot better if the final plans were actually drawn by a professional, wouldn't you?

The same principle is good to keep in mind when working with your own mixes. There comes a point in every indie artist's career where it really is a good idea to take your favorite song to be mixed by a pro. The disadvantage? Well, you'll have to spend a little money. The advantage? Not only will your song sound as good as it possibly can with the current arrangement and recording, but you'll also have learned key mixing principles from a pro.

Why is this important? Most of us learn to mix on our own, and even if we have a natural flair for it, it simply never hurts to learn how it can be done even better from the pros. There are so many little intricate details which you can pick up during a single session, which would otherwise take you years of trial and error and loads of reading to figure out.

If music is your business (or at least your WISH it to be your business), then this just might be one of the best investments you'll ever make.

We often hear otherwise excellent songs mixed poorly, and as a result they don't do so well on the show. What a shame and a pity! Frequently, only a few small adjustments to the mix would have completely transformed it.

And how can you know that the engineer you're about to pay a small fortune to is really good? Well, it's quite simple, really. Ask around. Check his credentials. Listen to his work. Also make sure it's an engineer who's experienced in mixing your style of music.

Bottom line: If you work with specialists, professionals - you can only improve yourself. Once you do, you'll never look back.

LISTEN TO: 227-Q/Monday Jun 15, 2009

Collaborations: Putting Your Career In Second Gear

Many "one-man bands" (which includes songwriters and producers) often have this attitude: "I do EVERYTHING in my music and I'm gonna make it ON MY OWN!"

Perhaps it's something we all share as humans, this sense of (false) pride and some kind of a Quixotic romantic notion that this is "the way" to do it.

Unfortunately, not only does it not square off with reality, it's a deeply flawed sentiment and it's one which can positively stop your career dead in its tracks before it can ever get off the ground.
I used to think the same way. Initially, you couldn't get me to collaborate with anyone. If asked, I would flat-out refuse. In this manner I've missed some awesome opportunities. Some where my would-be collaborators went on to bigger and better things, and others where perhaps my influence would have helped them.

With time, however, and way too late, I finally embraced the concept. And as soon as I did, I didn't just get to work with people who were "as good as" or "worse than" me. Pretty soon, I was invited to collaborate with "better" people. Some of them household names. And here's an interesting insight: I've learned LOTS from EACH of these types of collaborators. The "better ones" taught me plenty, but so did my "peers" as well as my "students."

Today, I'm fully converted. I believe a good collaboration can bring out the best in each artist involved. In fact, I can't even think of an example of ANY successful artist, writer or producer - anyone - who did it all alone. They all had collaborators!

Think about it. Would John and Paul "make it" without Ringo and George? Would either Britney Spears or Max Martin get on the map without each other? Would Jagger work without Richards?
There's time to work alone, and there's time to work with people. Make sure that in your artistic development schedule you have both. It's easier for bands. They're, by default, a "collaborative artist." But even they can use outside influences! Invite people to your sessions if only to be your "listeners."

Are "all" collaborations good?

Well, this very much depends on everyone's personality, but none more so than yours! If you're open-minded and sufficiently creative, you'll benefit from ANY kind of collaboration. I remember writing songs for a project involving little kids. At first I locked myself away and wrote and wrote, and then I had them perform it. Later, I decided to write in front of them - cold and on the spot. This completely transformed my mindset. I really had the hand on the pulse there, and the music I wrote was much more in tune with my young collaborators. Everybody (including me) enjoyed the whole experience much more as a result! I also worked with "peers" - people who were pretty much as good as I was. I usually managed to control these collaborations in such a way that they didn't become an uhealthy competition and everybody benefited from each other's insights and ideas. And finally, I also worked with people who were much better than me. Not only did that teach me stuff that would have taken me years to figure out by myself, but it also opened me to further similar collaborations!

So, how do you select whom to collaborate with?

I'd say that at first just try it with "anyone" who is equally passionate about music, and who's readily available to work with you. If possible, try to select people who complement you. Perhaps you're a great songwriter but not a great drum arranger? Or maybe you're a great arranger but don't know how to write "killer top-lines?" If you're objective about your limitations and not hung up about not being the best in "everything" you will soon be able to form killer collabs. And don't limit yourself to only one or two collaborators!

One of our closest friends and a long-time collaborator, Rob Davis, has gone on to become one of the world's most respected songwriters after he's teamed up with Kathy Dennis (whose solo efforts were also going nowhere fast at the time).

Collaborations can be magic. But they can only happen if you're open to them!

LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Wednesday Jun 10, 2009

Arrangement: Less is More

You've often heard this, for sure. Everyone says it: "less is more." But how does that apply to music? What if you WANT to have a "busy," dynamic part? What if you want your whole piece to be FULL of sound? Where does that leave "less is more?" Surely there have been successful songs and even classical compositions which are "rich in sound" and definitely don't sound like anything's "missing" there...?

Welcome to the world of arranging. "Less is more" does not mean "take EVERYTHING out!" It doesn't mean "don't use instruments which you would like to use." In fact, all it means is "be mindful of SPACE" in music. Let it breathe! And even that doesn't mean that you "must." It's only a recommendation, but a very heathy one.

It's all because of how our attention works. Picture a canvas filled with ornaments, design elements, all sorts of things. And all that is supposed to be a background for the "centerpiece," whatever it is How easily will you spot that centerpiece? How quick before you get tired of even looking at that picture?

It's very similar to the "less is more" principle in musical arrangement. Clutter your arrangement too much and you'll distract the ear from the central point of your message. Conversely, and in all fairness, if you don't do "enough" you might simply bore your listener.

OK. But how do you learn the art of "tasteful" arranging? As with anything in life, it takes time and patience and... study. Listen. Analyze. But, there are some useful shortcuts. Most indie arrangers are already quite experienced and they don't need the basics - they just need some things cleared up.

Let's use a "pop" track as an example (this could be anything from rock to R&B to country, etc). What is the barest minimum a song needs to "communicate?" Well, presumably the performance (vocal and instrumental ie. at least one instrument) and the song's inherent melodic and chordal structure. Will that be enough to "work" in your target market? Perhaps not. So, what does your target market expect? Let's start with the beat. It's pop after all! And that's drums and bass. Work out the rhythm section (and keep working on it) until it can stand on its own. It's gotta "groove" and "sit" just right. With a tightly arranged rhythm track, most songs almost don't "need" anything else. You'll find that most pop songs will work with just the basic (very well arranged) drums, bass and perhaps a rhythm guitar or rhythm piano, etc. Let these instruments complement each other and create a "vibey" and exciting pattern that could almost work as a composition in its own right.

That's the "core." Once you have the core, you can now add extra parts. But only add them when they're needed. Once you hear your song with the lead vocal and rhythm section, you'll easily hear that some parts work just the way they are, and some could use "something" to make them "lift."
But always "resist" adding more instruments. Remember that you CAN - so resist! ;) Before you do, first revise your rhythm section yet again. Keep working it out until you know it's exactly what the additional instrument needs to be and what it needs to do. And only then go on and add it.
In this manner, you'll learn to create "perfect" arrangements, i.e. arrangements which have exactly no more and no less than what's needed for the song to work.

And then there's one more unwritten but really essential rule: music needs to "breathe." It's a very good metaphor. When you breathe, you can breathe "in" or "out" - or "pause" for a moment. Make your music organic like that! You'll quickly discover what works for your particular piece, but always keep in mind that "relentless" events in your music (e.g. constant rapping or repetitive melody or insistent riffs, or progressions without breaks, etc, etc) often spoil the listening experience.

"Less is more" is all about "taste" and as a songwriter/producer/arranger this is by far the most important weapon in your arsenal!

LISTEN TO: 226-Q/Tuesday Jun 09, 2009