I Want My Virginity Back!

[ottlukk]

Steve: Got any contacts with Madonna or Britney?Ott

[Casey H]

Oct 1, 2009, 3:25pm, ottlukk wrote:Casey: I appreciate your comments. I'll give you a little background that Colm will appreciate. I originally sent the tune off to a Nashville demo firm I use. They, just like you, suggested that I lose the "nude pictures", and the "videotape" lines. And just like you, they suggested that it would be OK if she came back to the same guy . . . I tried "you can keep all my kisses, my smilin' picture, even the bowl full of grapes" as a substitute for that line. And then they disapproved of "and again, and again, and again . . ." at the end of the song. So what was I supposed to do? Change "so I can go lose it again" to "so we can go do it again"? The irony and humor(at least, from my point of view) would be entirely lost. A lot of the point of this song was that the guy didn't own her just because he'd been the first to taste the fruit. So I sent it off to my LA demo firm, and they didn't even blink. I just found it interesting that you zeroed in on the same things that the Nashville firm did. Thanks for listening.OttWow! I must be good if I zeroed in on the same things as the Nashville firm!! Actually, that made my day!! LOLIf YOU believe that those changes will make it more marketable then go with them. You might want to base that on whether you hear the same thing from multiple qualified sources- screeners, publishers, etc. (I don't necessarily consider myself on that "qualified" list)... Casey

[ottlukk]

jdhogg: Both males and females lose their virginity, but society seems to put a much higher value on the females. I'll explain it this way: I'm being ironic here. The only reason it "causes her pain" is that she can never, ever, lose it for the first time again. She found pleasure in it; why else would she want to "lose it" for the first time again? I'll point out that the "first time" is not exclusive to females; males experience it as well. The female in this song controls her own sexuality, which a lot of people might finnd threatening.Ott

[ottlukk]

waltl: at least you have a sense of humor; I appreciate it. In reposnse to a smile being "stylin'". If you're with someone you're into, almost anything about them would be "stylin'". As to your suggestion on use of the word "back". I tried all sorts of variations, but couldn't improve on it. I even thought about your suggestion "I need it now this instant" suggestion,but thought it might suggest an immediate need on the partof the singer . . . and it wouldn't fit. she doesn't want "it", she wants the opportunity for "it", sometime in the future. thanks for your close listen to the lyrics.Ott

[Casey H]

OttI am a non-performing songwriter who uses demo services so I feel some of your pain-- lyric changes after the fact are expensive. That's why we need to get as much as we can tweaked before the demo. I have found pro-critique-ing services and taxi custom reviews to be helpful. (The taxi custom reviews are better IMHO... Very thorough).But even with all that, we will always have to keep an open mind to lyric changes that may be needed. It's part of the game. People who do their own studio work have an obvious advantage here.I got the sense from one of your posts above that you were a little closed to changing lyrics & maybe rushing to get the demo done. (I could be wrong?).Often when deciding on a lyric, if I come to a crossroads, I'll take the safer route. For example, I might not use the word "damn" in a song now even though it's pretty trivial as far as non-PG language. I think your song would be a safer bet with changes like the ones the Nashville guy suggested. Maybe the first set of replacement words didn't work for you. That doesn't mean that others won't. If we get too stubborn, we hurt ourselves. (If you are an artist, not a pure songwriter-- then anything goes however).You have a very clever song idea here! Best of luck with it! Casey

[watksco]

Hey Ott - I laughed when I read thru the lyric - very funny. You have a great sense of humour! To some extent I agree with toning down one or two of the images (pun?) - but then that would depend on the intended audience.On to the demo: FWIW - In reading thru the lyric I heard a faster delivery of the lyric - more country/folk. I felt the delivery in the demo was too drawn out. Of course this is just IMO.Cheers,Scott

[ottlukk]

Scott: You're right, it's drawn out. It's not radio-friendly. But when I did the scratch vocals, I imagined an artist doing it on stage for a concert.This version gives her a lot of latitude. It also gives room to choreography for dancers, and gives backing musicians a lot of room. I appreciate you taking the time to listen, and make a comment!Ott

[ottlukk]

Casey & Scott: re: the lyrics. I really appreciate your comments here. I'll reiterate that the song was turned down by one demo firm because they found the lyrics inappropriate. It was tactfully suggested to me that I could change them to make them more acceptable to a mainstream audience. So none of these lyrics were set in stone, I had the opportunity to change them. Which I attempted to do. But when I attempted to do this -- and I came up with several lyrics that would have worked -- the song lost its soul. It would have been one more song about first love becoming true love, about happily ever after. That's not what the lady singing this song is about. She's her own person, is not blinded by love/lust contradictions, and has no problem with nudity, even if recorded for posterity. Her character is consistent throughout the song. So here's my question for you: If this song was submitted to this forum by Katy Perry, Pink, or Madonna, or any number of Pussycat Dolls wannabes, would anyone here take it seriously? Wouldn't they consider the lyrics "racy" because they came from a female? On the cutting edge? I can't imagine anyone here telling any of the aforementioned artists that these lyrics are too . . . whatever. I'm missing something here, and I'm not surewhat it isOtt

[toddt]

Hi Ott it's a clever song idea, and you may be able to make it work. I don't think there's anything wrong with sexual lyrics and concepts (ie If You Seek Amy). And case in point, Lady GaGa is essentially stripper pop.But you've been doing an awful lot of explaining of your song, and defending of it, which often (though definitely not always) points to an idea that may need further development - because your audience needs to be able to get what you mean immediately - especially with pop.Also, and in the same vein, it's a difficult line to surf between racy and "slutty". From my angle, I think the fundamental question you need to ask yourself (if you're aiming for this) is whether if Britney or Kylie or Pink etc sang this song it would make them look good or not. I suspect it probably wouldn't, in it's current form.I look forward to hearing this develop if you choose to - and good luck either way.

[tuite]

I'll reply to this in a PM. This thread was started by you looking for feedback on production etc. so theres no point rambling on about moral issues.Colm.