Passion for your music

[melodymessiah]

if you've read jason blumes "6 steps to songwriting success" you will know that hit songs are often rejected over and over again before they eventually hit the charts. it happens all the time. you can only stay true to yourself, do your best and hope for the best.

[TheElement]

good post. love it. only take advice from people who want to help. the others stay away from. also remember not everything is everybodys cup of tea.

most important be you. be true to yourself. follow your dream. find your style. find what you do best and what you can bring to the table. enjoy what you do. have fun!

[Geir]

Hi folks,

As the one responsible for starting this thread I have to say that I am overwhelmed by the interest it's created.

It seems that many other Taxi people feel the same way that I sometimes feel: That others who claim to know more than me (and probably often do) cause some degree of angst and insecurity in what I am trying to accomplish and what I believe in.

Although I am open to hearing other people's verdicts and suggestions, and adjusting where it seems sensible, I do believe even more firmly that each and every one of us should have enough belief in what we are trying to achieve to actually follow it through, even if others, apparently more knowledgable, disagree.

Whatever we make may be good or bad, but then everything is subjective, even for our cririques.

An example: I had an extremely excellent critique for a song. She was really humming about it. I made notes about the feedback and then managed to lose them. So I sent the same song with the same production back to the same person for a new critique, and guess what: The same pro slammed it ...

So how serious does that make me feel about these thing? So, so, but certainly not taking it as God's truth anymore!!

So I repeat my claim that Buddy Holly would have disappeared in the Country Hayride if he had listened to the "experts" and had not had the guts to stick to his faith. And that the Beatles would have been disbanded in dismay after having been turned down by every so called expert in Town unless they had believed in themselves and what they were doing and followed it through.

And that's what I think we should also do: By all means, listen to the "experts", adjust if we think it's right, but whatever we do - follow our own gut feelings.

Incidentally: For those who claimed that the reason The Beatles were turned down was because they were no good, then you can never have heard them at the time.
Believe me, they were the Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band on Earth three years before you had ever even heard of them!!

And even then - with their own songs highlighting the act (which is something to think about).

I know. I was there. And I was with them. That's why I know.

So believe in yourselves and what you do!

[jonnybutter]

For those who claimed that the reason The Beatles were turned down was because they were no good...

When I said the Beatles, in 1962, were ‘not that good’ I was overstating by implication to make my point, which was hardly that they were ‘no good’. I meant it in comparison to what they would become a couple years later. Mojo’s original statement was that if it had been you or me sitting behind the Big Desk we too might have turned them down. And I agree with him, because I’m pretty sure it was not obvious that they would become what they did - that they would explode the music business and change the world. If it had been obvious, everyone would have wanted them!

I was not arguing that the record companies that turned them down were right! I did not say they were ‘no good’ nor that the companies who turned them down were right to do so because they were ‘no good’. Obviously we now know that they were wrong! What I was arguing for was for a return in this business to at least the spirit of the 60s and early 70s, namely that record executives (or whoever funds creative projects in future) not presume to really know what is going to hit and what isn’t (without spending $1 million on promotion for every artist). They took a lot more chances before the late 70s, like G. Martin took with the Beatles; like Geffen took with Joni Mitchell (and many others); Tom Wilson with the Velvets and Zappa (and many others); etc etc etc etc. The relationship of risk to reward has not been repealed! Let the artists be the artists, and give them space to develop. Not only does this produce better art, but I think it also produces much more valuable catalogs!

But, sorry, I think you too are overstating a bit. I am skeptical that the Beatles were already as great in 1961 (3 years before we in the States heard of them) as they would later be, nor nearly as good as the artists they admired and copied at the time - Ray Charles, Little Richard, et. al. You were there and I wasn’t, Geir, but I have my doubts (and have heard the Hamburg boot and first 2 albums). And if Martin had not signed them and they just scuffled along in relative obscurity for another few years, not only would we not know their names today (because they likely would have broken up), but we wouldn’t have most of their great songs because they wouldn’t have been written.

I don't care who you are or how much of a genius you are - it takes time to develop. The Beatles got much better in Hamburg because it was their JOB (crappy though it was) to be musicians and play for hours and hours every night. Then during Beatlemania and after, it was their job to write fistfulls of new songs, and they got a lot better at that too.

[Geir]

Hi Jonny

Well, this thread isn't really about The Beatles - I just brought them into the picture as an example of the point I'm trying to make.
I could just as well have used Katy Perry as an example of the same - she was also turned down by just about everybody.

Apart from that then I agree with most of what you say, but I hope you don't mind me mentioning the fact that, imho, McCartney did Little Richard better than Little Richard did Little Richard - and I thought that guy was absolutely fabulous! They backed him when he was in the UK way back then, and he was so impressed that he wanted them to be his permanent backing band and come back to the States with him.

The bootleg was made by another Liverpool artist who happened to be in Hamburg at the same time - King Size Taylor - who simply placed his little mono tape recorder in front of the stage and let it run while they played. I agree that this was a terrible "recording" of a terrible performance, but by then they had been playing for about five solid hours, were half way out of their collective heads and just going through the motions. So I agree with you completely that this was pretty lousy stuff in every way ....

But then again, this thread is not about them. It's about how even the "experts" are subjective in their evaluations, and often get things very, very wrong - and that this fact should not stop us from following our own gut feelings for what we are writing, playing or producing.

Have a great weekend!

Geir

[funsongs]

Back to the title of this post: passion for your (ed. own) music
What do you do when you have songs you want to hear played/recorded on par with your favorite
artists?

Maybe you're not a professional-level musician, or know how to play all the instruments you want to hear in your song.
And if you don't have your own means to record yourself, you're only avenue is to get hired help.
Then, to hope to sound like radio-quality stuff, that means you gotta be able to get great players, etc.
Reality check... it's gonna take more than passion to get there from here.

Peter R.
https://soundcloud.com/funsongs-1/3elvi ... rough-demo

[Kolstad]

It's about how even the "experts" are subjective in their evaluations, and often get things very, very wrong - and that this fact should not stop us from following our own gut feelings for what we are writing, playing or producing.

Have a great weekend!

Geir

I want to react to the idea that "experts" are to be "objective" and that they are either right or wrong. So here's a few thoughts on that subject.

I think it's a mistake to expect "experts" to be anything but subjective. Is that really what you believe in? I think today is a very different time than the 60s. In the 60s the market was starving for new music, and both the expences and rewards of music production was very high. So artists had to depend on a&r, in order to qualify and get their releases funded.

Today a lot of people selfpublish, and due to the low cost of music equipment and online releases, can do whatever they want. At the same time the market is so saturated with music, that it is hard to cut through the clutter, even with high quality stuff.

So, considering the situation now, I think experts are underappreciated. As a homeproducer I am very happy that I can get out of my narrow studio mindset, and get a second opinion from people that are currently in the loop and have a much broader perspective than I can achieve from my little bubble haven at home. The Internet is not the world, but for some it sure looks like it.

It takes a bit of skill to use critiques well. I think this is overlooked, but the way the writer approaches feedforward and responds to feedback are as important as the judgements and suggestions you get back. You cannot treat a second opinion as an objective "fact", you always need to solicit the inputs you get according to the ideas you are looking for and the target you are going for. And if the target is moving, as they so often are, so should your evaluation of the critique be. When asking for a second opinion, the questions (the feedforward) are as important as the answers (the feedback). So, it's not about objectivity (we all know that's impossible, so let's move on from that, eh). The value is in what we want the coach to be subjective about, their standpoint, and at best on specifics we identify ourselves. That's passion.

The subjective opinion from a trusted source is much more worth than an "objective" (authoritative) one from a source that is not transparent, imho. Every coach I know, knows and understands this, but many students are looking for an easy quick "Mum" fix, where everything will be taken care of for them. Especially when they invest money, learning too quickly turn into "getting". That's a spoiled attitude, imo. Just because we get a second opinion doesn't mean that we can turn off our brains, and get a to-do list in return that guarantees success.

I believe we should appreciate experts more today, after the homerecording boom, where 14yo kids get more placements than veteran musicans, and the elitist "talent" myth has been exposed as the emperors new clothes. Music can be trained and learned, much like other practices, so the situation is very different. Try build a working relationship with someone you trust for an honest, well informed and road tested opinion. When you do that, you will also be more tuned into when to listen carefully and when to not. This can be done with online coaches as well, if you become a regular.

Just my take on it. Friday night and beers, but you know the old saying.. you'll get the truth only from children and drunk people

[jonnybutter]

I think we mostly agree, Geir! I know the thread isn't exactly about the Beatles, but they are exemplary in so many ways. Opinions differ about their abilities in the late 50s and very early 60s. You may know better than I. But you must admit that they improved a LOT - it's a long way from 'Love Me Do' to "in My Life' or music just a few years later.

I don't know about Katy Perry...I think she was easily signed to several labels and ended up on one of them. I do not care to sneer at her even a tiny bit - she makes fun pop and does it very well. But I don't see a singular vision there, or much creative resistance to 'experts'. But this thread is not about her either, so I don't want to start up on that!

Kolstad:

So artists had to depend on a&r, in order to qualify and get their releases funded.

In the 60s and early 70s there were plenty of artists signed to contracts who didn't pass a formal audition or screening process (like we do here). They were signed essentially because they had a band and/or some songs, had long hair, and the label took a chance. And they didn't just rely on the record contract to get their recording funded - they depended on support from the record company to live and write more material and make more records and tour. Yes, anyone can record an album now, but almost everyone has to do it in their spare time. In Hamburg The Beatles played 6 hours a night or something for 6 nights a week and they got paid. The typical performer now (in the US anyway) plays a few short shows per YEAR. For free. In a bookstore. And the audience is their mom and a few friends. The result is not the same. You can be passionate as you want and have all the talent and drive - a hobby had different results from a profession. Sometimes the hobbyist's work is better! But I don't think it usually is.

In the 60s the market was starving for new music,

I know what you mean, but I don't think there's any such thing as an a 'starving market' for music. There were a lot of teenaged kids to buy records, but I honestly believe that groups - especially after the Beatles - made the market, not the other way around. The music business exploded in the late 60s and 70s, and it's geometrically bigger now than it was then! I think people are starving for good music now too.

I agree with you that constructive criticism is useful, and someone who really knows how to listen can give you some very useful feedback - I have gotten a lot of it from screeners here at TAXI. And I ask random people who are and aren't professionals what their impressions are of my music all the time, and I almost always learn something useful. If I know I have something good, I don't necessarily change it because some people say they don't like it. But how music affects people - especially people who don't think about music a lot - can be really interesting and useful.

But I agree with Geir that supposed experts can be terribly wrong, and sometimes not even usefully wrong. Artists tend to be ahead of the creative curve, while execs tend (naturally, by the way) to want to hear something like they've already heard. The latter are fine with something new, so long as they aren't the first ones to promote it; everybody wants to be the second person to 'discover' Skrillex. There are surely exceptions now, and there definitely were after the early 70s (e.g. Seymour Stein), but that's the normal situation. To repeat myself, I don't think the ratio of risk and reward is so tweakable. Try to hedge your creative risk all you want, but art - including popular art - is not really like a mutual fund. No guts no glory.

[jonnybutter]

the elitist "talent" myth has been exposed as the emperors new clothes

Not sure what you mean here - but at any rate, it isn't what I meant upthread with my Motown example. I don't think talent is a myth - it's real. It's just that there's more of it around than is commonly supposed. Skills can be learned of course, but there is such a thing as talent. If everyone's talent in everything were developed a little more, it would be a very different world! The bar for everything would be a lot higher, which would be good, I say!

The myth to me is that talent is incredibly rare.

[TheElement]

There is natural born talent in everyone. I feel everyone has a gift. but it has to be developed. You have to work at it. and work at it real hard to come out on top.