"EVERYBODY" update

[billg]

Yup, I'm cranky. Very specific request & I went ala The Byrds soundalike with this;http://www.billgaunce.com/song/98for this;CLASSIC ROCK SONGS a la Janis Joplin, The Byrds, Cream, The Yardbirds, Donovan, Joan Baez, The Kinks, Bob Dylan, The Who, etc. are needed by an established Music Publisher in Los Angeles. This company specializes in Film/TV and has signed & secured placements for many TAXI members. Male or female vocals are just fine for this one, but remember - no profanity. These songs should be original, but with a close "soundalike" quality to the songs and style of the referenced artists. Performances and the sound quality must be excellent (solid demo recordings are okay as long as the quality is there). They offer a non-exclusive, 50/50 split deal - you keep your original copyrights. Broadcast quality needed. Please submit one to three songs online or per CD, include lyrics. All submissions will be screened on a YES/NO BASIS - NO CRITIQUES FROM TAXI - and must be received by October 20, 2008. TAXI #Y081020CRThe song was recently forwarded for another 60s listing that didn't specifically mention The Byrds. Maybe it's the "high" reference . . . but remember "8 Miles High"? I dunno, just grasping for straws because there was no critique. IMO there is nothing more frustrating that these "no critique" listings (ok, except maybe a totally confusing critique!).I did get a spin on a small regional radio station, staff pick at the "B" place that we can't mention, and at last count 40 plus downloads so I'm greatful for the motivation Taxi provided for me to write & record the song . . . but I'm still cranky.Excuse me, now I wanna get high.Oh yeah, for an ala Dylan I was returned for thishttp://www.billgaunce.com/song/14which has also been forwarded several times by Taxi (and signed un-related to Taxi) for the same type of listing. This one doesn't hurt as bad. I guess it's because I didn't create it for the listing.Whine, whine, whine.

[davekershaw]

Hey Bill, that's two bummers in a row!Yours and Erns!!No wonder you're whining.You can't get much closer to a Byrds sound.Yeah, I've not had a critique for months.They've all been Yes/No.If you get a chance, can you have another listen to that "Farewell" track. I brought the drums and bass up, and tightened it up.Could do with some more feedback so I can put it to bed.I've submitted it for a mid-December deadline, so plenty of time to tweak it.Cheers Mate.Dave.

[llama]

Well FWIW I'm sitting here scratching my head.....Byrds for sure.....Dylan..absolutely. How much soundalike can ya get? Even the production on the Byrds track has a sixties feel to it...On a positive note you got two really outstanding songs that have already or will find a good home.....BTW I really really like "Compliments in Lavender". I've already played it two or three times. Derek

[squids]

Bill. Well. Ya already know what I'm gonna say (and what I think). So ya know, mo of the same thing that I've said befo. (sigh) Po' baby.

[slowdance]

Bill,Find this hard to believe...............I thought I was listening to the reincarnation of McGuinn, Clark, Crosby, Hillman and Clarke. I thought you were dead on with this one.........is getting HIGH profanity?Well done............ I throughly enjoyed it.Dick

[davewalton]

Nov 19, 2008, 5:30am, billg wrote:Maybe it's the "high" reference . . . There's nothing left but that. It's certainly not the music, the style, the production or anything else. I was pretty much blown away by the song... everything was dead on. The only thing that remains is that the listing did say something about "No Profanity" or whatever... there seemed to be a broad interpretation of that to include drug references and such too."When we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. "Sherlock HolmesPS - On the up side... this should take you about two days max to sign this into one of your existing libraries.

[billg]

Thanks guys. I emailed Erin at Taxi to see if she could tell me why it was nixed, but I haven't heard back. I hate to pester her but I'm gonna email again. I can understand completely not wanting a drug reference in a song but they are asking for 60s songs for film/tv. It's pretty hard to take the culture out of the music when that's the particular call! There's not a group in those alas that didn't have drug references in their songs, and in a film/tv situation depicting the 60s whose to say that's not exactly what someone would want? Unless the screener has some info that wasn't in the listing ( like a particular scene or film, show etc.) it would seem to me that the song should have gone through for someone else to determine if it was appropriate for a particular listing.

[Casey H]

Hi Bill (my cranky friend)First, great song... I remember listening when you first posted it. If it's not the drug thing, I'm not sure what it is. Here is part of what I wrote when you first posted it: Songs from this era were full of drug (or "maybe" drug) references. So "everybody wants to get high" definitely goes with the time period. However, on the odd chance that a library wants an era song but not the drug reference, I wonder if something like "everybody wants to be alive" (not exact, just a thought) would make it safer. There were a lot of Byrds tunes about freedom without being high ... (Of course you could cut two versions) ... A film or show could take place in an era but the target audience is one whereby profanity, drugs, or sex may not be appropriate. Sometimes libraries are looking for what they need now based on current projects so they will reject things that that don't make the cut for those. Others, do more building the catalog, regardless.My advice is, when writing, eliminate all potential roadblocks if possible. Leave out drugs, explicit sex references, profanity, touchy subjects, etc. We've talked off-line about my problems with specific people or geographical names in songs. Yes, there were many successful 60's and 70's songs with "Susie" in them, but for film/TV, it just narrows the opportunity field too much.I hope the non-forward was just a mistake and not related to this at all... this is all conjecture, of course.BTW, you are one of the best around here at authentic 60's style songs, so there will be lots more opps for you. But I do understand the cranky feeling. I have it most days!Best! Casey

[billg]

Hey Casey, I remember you telling me this! Guess you're smarter than the average bear! I guess I'm grumbling based on my perception of what the listing was. No profanity in a sixties song is a given to me . The Rolling Stones had to sing "Let's Spend Some Time Together" in order for it to fly on the Ed Sullivan Show, but The Byrds could have a hit with "8 miles High"""?? I sort of assumed that the listing was for songs someone was signing to their catalog or something like that. We can only go by the info given to us. If I were creating a listing for sixties songs to include "no profanity" wouldn't even cross my mind. But if it was for a specific listing (like children's programming etc.) I would have surely thought it obvious & helpful to say something like " this will be for a scene in an after school special so bear this in mind in regards to lyrical content, and no drug references please!".It might not be the case with this listing but it seems that sometimes info that could really make a difference is either taken for granted or left out. Chris at Taxi told me once in an email that I was "over thinking" the listings . . . geez sometimes I feel like I need a de-coder ring and a crystal ball

[cameron]

Nov 20, 2008, 5:21am, hurowitz wrote:Hi Bill (my cranky friend)My advice is, when writing, eliminate all potential roadblocks if possible. Leave out drugs, explicit sex references, profanity, touchy subjects, etc. Best! CaseyI've taken that a step further lately and have been leaving out the melody. Actually Bill, I thought this was going to be a slam-dunk for you. Sorry it didn't fly. I got three returns myself yesterday (without critique), but I can't blame Taxi as the listing said a rep from the label was going to be doing the screening.