Who do we believe?

[cameron]

Just got a return on three songs I'd submitted. I guess that's to be expected for the high-bar country listings I'm chasing, but it's hard to take any of the critiques seriously when every screener says something different. I've received previous critiques on all three songs. Today's screener said "could benefit from more development" and rated the lyrics relatively poor on one song (a four). The Taxi custom critique I got last week on the same song said "Your story has good development. I really like your lyric, it is relatable (sic) and engaging." and gave the lyrics a 7. I could go on, but you get the idea.I realize that a critique is just one person's opinion, and that there are always other listings... but to me this is one big flaw in Taxi's system. I know Taxi just reflects the industry, but to me, having to get by a screener-- who may or may not share the client's tastes-- just to get somebody in the industry to listen to your song is not a good thing. Basically, with Taxi you have to get through two people instead of just one, so your chances of success are reduced accordingly. Of course, Taxi gives you the CHANCE to get a listen from some major labels who you would never get to listen to you songs otherwise, but I think it's important not to put all your eggs in the Taxi basket. Yes, I understand why Taxi keeps their standards high, but what's good for Taxi is not necessarily what's good for you. Keep promoting your songs and building your own contacts, and remember that Taxi is just another tool in your bag.Cam

[jchitty]

Oct 21, 2008, 11:20am, billg wrote:hey Cam, I think we've all been there & thought the same things that you're bringing up. I've always thought that if a screener had a problem with a song that was basically "spliting hairs" on a subjective issue that the song should be forwarded. Like you said, the client may see it differently. However there seem to be some hard and fast rules for the "new" country market. It's my belief that it's nearly ( I said NEARLY!) impossible to get a cut by a major country artist from an unknown writer through Taxi and I tip my hat to all of you guys (and gals) who keep trying. All songwriters get banged up pretty good on a regular basis but you guys take the most punishment. You're a tough breed."You're a tough breed." That's about the nicest thing (and so true) that anyone has ever said about us country songwriters. If we complain just a bit, hehe, we are seen as whiners. But really.... it takes a lot of fortitude and drive to continue to submit month after month and not get fowarded on a regular basis. This is what you face when you write country....I feel like a doctor sometimes...I cannot emotionally attach myself to my patient (that being the song of course) so I've learned not to feel anything and keep creating...that's my way of staying in the game. Cameron, I too have had differing critiques on my songs. It's frustrating at times, especially when you're trying to determine what it takes to get a foward. I look for one common element that might appear in all the critiques...such as, if three different screeners are saying that your chorus is too repetitive (I've had that before) then that's what you need to work on. It can be confusing, I know....you'll have two or three screeners say different things about a song, some liking it, some not, but often times, you can find one common point they all found fault with. That's the one to focus on.Of course, sometimes, two critiques will be totally different...and on one occasion, I've had one screener not foward a song, while another screener did foward the song. You might even try re-submitting the song again. There are times when I say, "WTF" when I read a TAXI screener's comments. And YET, I've had my days when I say, 'you know, TAXI is making me a better writer!"

[tedsingingfox]

Oct 22, 2008, 9:00am, louis2012 wrote:The one thing that fascinates me about the high bar country listings is the critique of lyrics. Country music (aside from hip hop) has more cheesy, trite, cliched, hackneyed and insincere lyrics than pretty much any other genre! So when a screener returns a country submission and says things like 'try to put a new spin on an old sentiment' I immediately go onto youtube, see the successful country artists of today and I piss myself laughing at the inability of any of these artists to say something new.Its sad when a killer melody gets over looked, I'd love to say to these record company people, 'hey here's a killer melody, why not sign it and get that talentless cracker who can't write his own songs (which begs the question why did you sign him) to mumble whatever trite shite over the top because you only signed him for his looks'.Let's not pretend for a moment more that country has got anything new to say.Uh-oh, Louis.Now you've done it.Me, personally... I believe you have just made not only an inaccurate statement but also an extremely dangerous one, and there are many dedicated, committed country songwriters on these boards as well as country fans.There is no other genre of songwriting out there today that requires MORE work and more crafting and editing and refining, OR more of a command of the (nuances of the) language than "hit" country songwriting. I won't argue for one second that less-than-stellar songs get cut and often run way up the charts; but from a purely constructional perspective, it's the smartest stuff being written.I shudder to think about the heated, emotional responses you might be getting in the near-future.Good luck, man. (Brace yourself... )Ted

[jchitty]

Oct 22, 2008, 9:00am, louis2012 wrote:The one thing that fascinates me about the high bar country listings is the critique of lyrics. Country music (aside from hip hop) has more cheesy, trite, cliched, hackneyed and insincere lyrics than pretty much any other genre! So when a screener returns a country submission and says things like 'try to put a new spin on an old sentiment' I immediately go onto youtube, see the successful country artists of today and I piss myself laughing at the inability of any of these artists to say something new.Its sad when a killer melody gets over looked, I'd love to say to these record company people, 'hey here's a killer melody, why not sign it and get that talentless cracker who can't write his own songs (which begs the question why did you sign him) to mumble whatever trite shite over the top because you only signed him for his looks'.Let's not pretend for a moment more that country has got anything new to say. Ted is right...them's fighting words. I can understand this sentiment though. Artists on the radio can cut just about anything because their fans will purchase their music, no matter how 'trite' their songs sound. They can get away with it because they have a fan base. For the newbie country songwriter...well, we have to write an unbelievable hit to get through, and even then we might not get a cut. That's because we don't have a street cred yet. I have mixed feelings about my own genre. On one hand, I'm a fan of groups like "The Old Crowe Medicine Show." I don't know if you've heard any of their stuff, Louis, but it's very soulful and authentic....and very well crafted. If you check out a song called "James River Blues," you'll see they can compete with any lyric Dylan wrote. They've topped the alt-country and bluegrass list for quite some time, but they aren't a mainstream country group because the majority of buying public are teens. And while I'm sure a lot of teens who like country will purchase Old Crowe Medicine Show, most of them are drawn to artists like Taylor Swift. Some of Taylor's tunes like "Tim McGraw," are good songs though, so I don't wanna knock her really. This is happening in all genres really....rock, alternative, R& B...a lot of music out there is written for the masses.My point is, you can't lump all country together...some of it is fairly profound stuff, mirroring many aspects of society.I've learned though that just because I like to write certain music, packed with metaphors, imagery and symbolism...well, that doesn't mean country fans will like it. In country right now, it's all about the story, and if your story doesn't grab someone (no matter how boring and trite it sounds) you can't get past those gates.So you can either write a song Nashville wants, no matter how boring you think it will be, or you can write unique stuff that may never get an audience. Me, I like a challenge, and believe it or not, I've warmed to commercial country, although I've listened to it for years. It's an acquired taste...like you, I used to hate it years ago, but it grows on you, trust me. Listen to Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats" (or much of her stuff) and you'll see those songs are very well crafted as well, no matter how they initially sound to you. Those songs have good bones.Since Matt is on this thread, I don't know if he realizes that he's the one who had an influence on the way I write country now. He once said, "Writing country looks deceptively simple. But it's not that easy." (or something like that) So oddly enough, it takes a lot of skill to write that 'trite' song. I've learned now to write with no stone unturned, and it's still very hard to get those country fowards...I get very few of them.When you start to respect the commercial stuff, you can learn to write it, although by your post, I don't think that's the goal. You may think it's easy to write a country song and that anyone can do it, but I've been a TAXI member for three years, and there are days I want to tear my tresses out, no lie.

[Casey H]

I feel for those who write country. It looks like an incredibly tough road. I think it's important that you, in addition to using Taxi as a valuable resource, work your ass off to also pitch your songs every other way possible. Most folks find that taxi is NOT being more picky than the publishers out there, especially the better ones. However, if your songs are in that "almost" category with very high scores and "missed it by a smidget" or sometimes get forwarded & sometimes not, then I think it's even more important that you market them hard. As an aside, folks who have actually gone to Nashville and pitched directly to publishers say they really do get an awakening as to how tough it is.Use Taxi, NSAI, etc. to get feedback to help you refine your craft. Keep submitting to Taxi. But ask yourself, "what else can I do to take the most control over my musical destiny?" Can you find the names of publishers who will listen? Can you visit Nashville and use the visit effectively? Can you attend workshops, collaborate more, etc?This sort of thing has come up on other threads. Marketing yourself shouldn't be limited to any ONE vehicle. It's so much more than joining any one service and sitting on just that one.Just some thoughts... Thank God for rock 'n roll... Casey

[matthoggard]

Wow Louis you better cut n run ! :)Its 50/50 for me. I listen to mainstream country every freakin day. Half the new songs are great with killer stories and hooks and melodies.The other half are just pure commercial formula record selling songs.these days most new country artists get 1 album. IF it aint gold in 6 months then the labels are on to the next thing. SO, its all about selling records. For ever bigtime artist (Kenny Chesney, Toby Keith, etc. ) there are 4-5 that usually get 1 hit single and then they are gone. Same with female artists. IF you realy think ALL mainstream country is cheese ill list a few artists to check out that do have current hits on the chart and their songs are way above the rest.Kenny ChesneyJamey JohnsonToby KeithMiranda LambertSugarlandLittle Big TownThese are just a few, Jamey Johnson for me is the most complete songwriter/artist. If you like traditional sounds then youll love his music.Just like rock and pop its all about the next big hit to sell those millions of record and if whats selling is music for 16 year old girls then thats what the labels will be looking for.Thanks god country music is so much larger than what we hear on the radio. And Janet I LOVEOld Crowe medicine Show. Great music!!Rant over now. M~

[wta]

Oct 20, 2008, 8:56pm, cameron wrote:I realize that a critique is just one person's opinion, and that there are always other listings... but to me this is one big flaw in Taxi's system. I know Taxi just reflects the industry, but to me, having to get by a screener-- who may or may not share the client's tastes-- just to get somebody in the industry to listen to your song is not a good thing. This is a tricky one Cameron, though I agree with the statement the industry folk call taxi BECAUSE the songs are pre-screened. No screening = no clients to licence music. I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wta

[Casey H]

Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey

[hummingbird]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. CaseyLike Casey says, this has been discussed before, and it would triple the cost of screening music - not to mention, triple the time it takes to get the results (or for the clients to get the forwarded music). Suggesting that your submission should be assessed by 3 people before being returned or forwarded flies in face of the reality of the music industry, which is riddled with 'gatekeepers' and 'screeners'. One person's opinion is going make the difference between you getting another listen or not, whichever way you do it. You might submit directly to a music publisher, but chances are an intern is going to listen to your submission & decide whether it should move on to the desk of a decision maker.But there is a VERY simple solution if you want a song to be screened 3 times. Submit it to similar listings 3 times, and try to see the commonalities in the response.I signed a song this year (through Taxi) that had been submitted to Taxi seven times over a few months. It was forwarded five times out of seven. So were the 2 screeners who returned it off their rockers? No, they were screening the song within the context of the listing & they felt it didn't fit. The fact that it was signed by a publisher doesn't mean they didn't do their jobs.I'm absolutely not against discussing ideas that might make Taxi better, but... if I were to think that Taxi needs to change so I can be more successful, then I would be, IMO, thinking ineffectively. My goal has been, and continues to be, to figure out how I can make the Taxi model work for me. Here is the secret of every Forward I've ever had: I give the screeners what they are looking for.Sounds simple, but it took me four years to figure out how to do that. When I see an "F", I know I've done my job. And because I did my job, the screener could do his/her job -- and send my music on to the listing party.

[wta]

Oct 22, 2008, 6:10pm, hurowitz wrote:Oct 22, 2008, 5:56pm, wta wrote:[quote author=cameron board=complaints thread=10053 post=95582 time=1224564975] I've spent much time on this very subject and a few threads have helped in what I'm about to say, though not complicated the following would solve the issue. Here goes... There should be 3 screeners per song submission and each should rate the tune and the songs with a rating of "x" or higher should get fowarded and the rest returned with a critique from all three screeners. That one I offer for free Michael in trade of the great help you where recently, I've got more input on this but I'll save it for a rainy day (I'm one of those guys that companies contract to maximize and streamline marketing, customer relations and the stimulation of profits. , really). '-) wtaHi WThe multiple screener thing has been suggested many times before. One thing you have to keep in mind is that it also would dramatically increase taxi's operating cost. How much more would you willing to pay for you membership? For each submission? What would happen (for example) if taxi was $699/year and $15 - $20 per submission? Screeners are paid $xx per hour. To have three screeners per song, you'd have to triple that expense. But it's more than that. The more employees a company has, the more administrative costs- hiring, firing, training, management, etc. It's not practical without raising member fees to the point where there would be few members. There needs to be that "sweet spot" for a business, the balance between their costs and what customers will buy.Taxi hasn't raised it's membership and submission fees since way back in the 90's. Casey Now Casey you're assuming that I haven't considered the increase in costs for this change? Come on man give me just a touch of credit here I'd be a full blown IDIOT to not have considered that. Like I said I've got more on the subject that I haven't shared yet that would take that into consideration as there are many practical ways around the challenge but I'm not going to do so on this forum... Taxi is doing what they want, the way they want to and thats the bottom line but I am thinking is pretty weird how people have an issue talking about the strenghts and weakness of Taxi and how it could better serve their clients... Bottom line, more screeners would be better for the artists and the client and there is no argument for that (artist retention would undoubtably increase as there would be this continual issue being brought up leaving many unhappy non-renewers), is it better for taxi, that's the defining factor and would likely be happening if it could be pulled of in the present framework... '-) wta '-) wta