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/
Showing posts with label revision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revision. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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!"
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!"
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, July 7, 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
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
Monday, July 6, 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
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
Wednesday, July 1, 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
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
Tuesday, June 30, 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
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
Monday, June 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:
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
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!
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
Wednesday, June 24, 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
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
Tuesday, June 23, 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
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
Monday, June 22, 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
