A La This, A La That

[matto]

Taxi simply passes on the information it receives from the listing party. If they are looking for a song a la "Breakaway", the listing will say so. If they're looking for an artist a la Kelly Clarkson, the listing will say so. If they're looking for an artist with songs like "Breakaway", the listing will say so.

[sevenworlds]

Well, maybe some of the screeners should bear this in mind when stating a submission isn't on target. I've had some patronising critiques related to this issue. I mean, if a listing asked for The Beatles, for instance, how am I to know whether they mean "Helter Skelter" or "Yesterday" or anything in-between??? That is provided the listing or other artists mentioned don't give away any clues, which can quite often be the case.

[davewalton]

Quote:I mean, if a listing asked for The Beatles, for instance, how am I to know whether they mean "Helter Skelter" or "Yesterday" or anything in-between??? Too much thinking going on here. Try to think in terms of if you were asked to make a little presentation to Math and Science students for a music appreciation class. To get everyone to basically understand what "Beatles" music is and sounds like, you probably wouldn't pick Helter Skelter. It's just not the typical representation of the "Beatles sound". I think a lot of songs get rejected because they're not true enough to what the listing is asking for. If they're not specific (they just want "Zydeco" music) then I would suggest doing the most generic, basic Zydeco music you could do. If you couldn't present it at a music appreciation class as the definitive example of Zydeco, then it probably doesn't have the best chance at getting forwarded.

[sevenworlds]

Quote:To get everyone to basically understand what "Beatles" music is and sounds like, you probably wouldn't pick Helter Skelter. It's just not the typical representation of the "Beatles sound". But what is a typical representation of the "Beatles sound" then? There's a general sound for the '63 - '65 period, then you've got "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" which are both pretty unique sounding, followed by "Pepper", another one-off, and then each album after that has it's own sound and style of songs.Even if you just want to stick with the hit singles "Love Me Do" is quite different from "Yesterday" which is different from "Penny Lane" which is different from "Something" which is different from "Come Together" which is also different from "The Long And Winding Road". If you didn't know any better, you could easily be forgiven for thinking they were all from different artists. The style of lyrics varies greatly, the melodies and overall music, the instrumentation, the production, etc.That is as music should be. It's a human thing, people aren't one thing all the time. I know Taxi just follows the industry blah blah blah... but still they are part of the system and they encourage these limitations and barriers in music.

[davewalton]

Quote:But what is a typical representation of the "Beatles sound" then?I'm getting in over my head pretty quickly here. I guess I can partially duck the question while partially answering it at the same time by saying that you can easily eliminate Beatles songs that aren't typical of their sound (Helter Skelter, etc). Like Sherlock Holmes might say, "Whatever is left must then be the typical Beatles sound."It's easier to answer with my Zydeco example since Zydeco is a genre and Beatles isn't. We all know what Zydeco sounds like or is supposed to sound like. A music supervisor looking for Zydeco generally isn't looking for "ground breaking" Zydeco, but usually wants the best generic definition of Zydeco.Quote:I know Taxi just follows the industry blah blah blah... but still they are part of the system and they encourage these limitations and barriers in music.Sometimes the difficulty is in pulling ourselves away from the situation and looking at it objectively. My observation is that Taxi encourages musicians to write and submit what the listings are looking for. There's a difference when we're in the drivers seat (signed with a record label that is drooling all over us) and we can then excercise our creative freedom. However, mostly we're not in that position and our creativity comes by adjusting our natural music styles to fit a specific listing. I'm proudest of the music that has gotten forwarded that was (at one point) outside of my normal style. I guess it is what it is and the energy spent fighting the system might better be used to write music that the system can use. I can say that I have "Taxi" music which is sometimes different from something I might do on my own. I started to understand this a little better after getting a demo CD from Matt Hirt (Matto, here on the boards). I'll admit that initially I was a little disappointed because I was expecting a CD full of never-been-heard-before, ground-breaking material. After all, he gets a lot of major placements. What I got was a CD of very different styles and none of them particularly ground breaking in terms of "never heard it done that way before". What I realized at some point is that Matt is successful because his music is the best representation of whatever style is being asked for. His demo CD doesn't have diluted, cross-genre music that can't be defined. It's the music you could play in a music appreciation class to demonstrate pure, undiluted examples of different styles like Salsa, Zydeco, etc. He simply gives the best representation of each style, pure and straight forward. If I'm a music supervisor and I need a Salsa or Zydeco piece, using a cross-genre piece of music isn't going to be in my best interest. It's a business, they're our clients and we have to give them what they want. If they want a chocolate donut, giving them a "creative" white cake donut with chocolate sprinkles won't make them happy.

[sevenworlds]

You speak as if music is a science or mathematical problem, Dave.It really doesn't have to be that way. That's where I'm coming from. There is a place for all sorts of music but the system is too conservative and fearful to see it. I, as a listener first and foremost, do not agree with how music is being handled by the system. It's not a "fight", it doesn't require any "energy", it's simply a principle I have. So, since Taxi is part of this and continues to perpetuate it... well, I'm just saying what I feel.Quote:I started to understand this a little better after getting a demo CD from Matt Hirt (Matto, here on the boards). I'll admit that initially I was a little disappointed because I was expecting a CD full of never-been-heard-before, ground-breaking material. After all, he gets a lot of major placements. What I got was a CD of very different styles and none of them particularly ground breaking in terms of "never heard it done that way before".Is this just your polite way of saying "generic" and "formulaic", perhaps? Quote:It's the music you could play in a music appreciation class But why would you want to make music for that reason? Whatever happened to writing because you have something to express as an individual? Whether you're in music to express yourself or for other reasons it's gonna be hard work either way so why would you want to put yourself through that and not take yourself the whole way? You may as well get a 9 - 5 job!Quote:"Whatever is left must then be the typical Beatles sound."But what is left??? Don't you see how absurd that is? Sure, you can eliminate "Helter Skelter", a few others but where do you draw the line? Just take a look at the diversity of their singles!Quote:It's easier to answer with my Zydeco example since Zydeco is a genre and Beatles isn't.That's exactly what I'm saying. You're finding it difficult narrowing things down to one artist so you want to demonstrate with a genre. If only Taxi/the system took things no further than genres - there'd be more scope for songwriters out of which some interesting things might appear.As you say, we all know what zydeco sounds like but there's room for maneouvre in that term. Just as blues or reggae conjure up a sound which is open to many possibilities. When you start chopping things up into artists and bands - but strangely not narrowing it down further - it stifles and confuses the songwriters and what you end up with is a lot of wishy-washy music getting through the system.

[davewalton]

Too many things to reply to. You win.

[mani]

Beatles in a box:Predominant use of open fifth harmonies. (Fairly unusual for a pop act at the time.)Bass parts are normally fairly busy tuba-style lines that cling to inner voices just as much as they do the root.Chromatic scales and melodies abound. They pretty much popularized this sort of chord sequence and it's widely and easily recognized as a "Beatlesy" thing. (See Lucy in the Sky, Dear Prudence or countless others.)Liverpudlian accents. But any remotely Brit type accent will do in a pinch!Ringo's patented <ba-da-bum-bum-ba-da> drum fill.Rickenbacker guitars or anything that goes jingle jangle.For later style, you can't go wrong with a mellotron. For earlier stuff, try a harmonica.If pointed out to them, most people would recognize the factors above even if they didn't understand anything about music. Lots of other defining stuff but don't have the time!

[davewalton]

Quote:Beatles in a box:Predominant use of open fifth harmonies. (Fairly unusual for a pop act at the time.)Bass parts are normally fairly busy tuba-style lines that cling to inner voices just as much as they do the root.Chromatic scales and melodies abound. They pretty much popularized this sort of chord sequence and it's widely and easily recognized as a "Beatlesy" thing. (See Lucy in the Sky, Dear Prudence or countless others.)Liverpudlian accents. But any remotely Brit type accent will do in a pinch!Ringo's patented <ba-da-bum-bum-ba-da> drum fill.Rickenbacker guitars or anything that goes jingle jangle.For later style, you can't go wrong with a mellotron. For earlier stuff, try a harmonica.If pointed out to them, most people would recognize the factors above even if they didn't understand anything about music. Lots of other defining stuff but don't have the time!That's a much better explanation than mine (take away everything that doesn't sound like Beatles and what you have left has the be the Beatles). Of course I prefaced it with "I'm in over my head". That never stopped me in the past from commenting. EDITI see now that with this post I became a "Full Member" and no longer a "Junior Member". Funny... I don't feel any smarter...

[matto]

Quote:Quote:I started to understand this a little better after getting a demo CD from Matt Hirt (Matto, here on the boards). I'll admit that initially I was a little disappointed because I was expecting a CD full of never-been-heard-before, ground-breaking material. After all, he gets a lot of major placements. What I got was a CD of very different styles and none of them particularly ground breaking in terms of "never heard it done that way before".Is this just your polite way of saying "generic" and "formulaic", perhaps? Hmm, not sure how and why exactly I got dragged into this and why I'm being insulted here, when it seems rather obvious that you guys have completely different goals:David (sevenworlds) wants to be a recording artist and get signed to a record deal...sort of...whereas Dave wants to make a living as a composer for film/tv.When you're trying to do the latter, stylistic versatilty is an asset (and being able to write Zydeco may actually come in handy), when you're trying to achieve the former, it is (at least initially) a disadvantage.Telling an artist he should make his music sound more like artist X in order to get signed is silly (this is not the same as showing somebody how to improve their writing by giving them examples of great songs and writers). When Taxi (or rather, the company running the listing) uses "ala's" in artist listings it's not to tell people to write something just like the a la artists, but to give people a stylistic ballpark. And, btw, (record) labels didn't come up with this, consumers will always use other well-known artists to describe somebody they've just heard for the first time...it's just us musicians who think we're so damn "unique" who shun those comparisons ). Be that as it may, as an artist, you need to write what you wanna write, and let the chips fall where they may. If it's not something the labels are interested in, take it directly to the public.When you're a songwriter or a composer for film/tv, things are a little different. It's not all about you. It's more of a collaborative process (regardless if you're actually collaborating at the time of writing). Your song has to make the artist performing it shine. Your music has to support the action or mood of the picture. For a composer, in order to be able to effectively support different scenarios, you need to have stylistic versatility. It's like being fluent in different languages. Some people find this sort of thing interesting and a challenge, to others it's distraction.Neither of these two ways of making music is any better or more worthwhile than the other.Just because you write in many different genres doesn't mean the end result has to be formulaic or generic, it's hopefully still full of your artistic personality.Just because you think you're a great artist and are "expressing your innermost feelings" doesn't mean that a) you're doing a good job at it and b) the end result can't be generic sounding, or even worse, just plain horrible . We've all heard too many examples of that .matto