Some call it Maize

I call it corn.  By that I mean what I write and record is what others call music, but I call it doing the best I can with what I've got.  I don't claim to be good, nor do I claim to want to be any better than I'm going to be.  I get a kick out of being the best I can, knowing full well that what I do is make up songs, most of which are not that great, and I'm comfortable with that.  I think what I write are songs, and what I record is music, and it may or may not be called something else by someone else.

In my last post I wrote about what it means to call yourself a songwriter, and I want to make it clear I don't take it so seriously that I pretend I'm something I'm not.  It's just a word, and whether I ever sell a song or become rich and famous from it, I can feel good calling myself a songwriter.  Even if I never play my music in front of people.  Actually, when in a group setting where people I gave my CDs to decide to play them in my presence, I cringe.  Not sure why.  I like making the recordings, but a part of me doesn't want to hear them played back with others around.

It's okay to suck and be happy sucking at something.  Others may not like it, and I completely understand that.  They might say I produced something good, or something bad, but it's still sounding close to resembling music.  I know my limitations, I know what doesn't sound right and what can be improved in my recordings, even after I've done the best I could.  It's hard to make people understand that.  Sometimes you lose some magic spirit when you keep doing something over and over again until you get it perfect.  It's better to go with the flow, re-do a few things here and there, get it close to what you envisioned, and call it good.

Be Happy Being Bad

I say go ahead and be terrible, know it, own it, and do it anyway because it pleases you.  It's probably rare to be bad at something, yet have a passion for it anyway.  I say there's nothing wrong with that at all.  What you have that more gifted people might not have as much of is that very passion.  Take whatever level of skill you do have and work with it.  It's what makes you unique.  Whether it's your creativity for lyrics or melodies, technical instrument playing, perfect pitch, etc., its not the level you're at, but rather, it's what you decide to do with it. 

It is entirely possible for you as an intelligent human being to be an appreciator and connoisseur of music - to know what's commonly considered good and popular and what's not.  It's also possible for you to choose to look on the bright side of your own levels as compared with the ideals you understand.  So that when you realize you're quite far apart from that high-set bar as a discerning listener, you do not view it as so much of a negative that you give up trying.  Try hard, and perhaps fail miserably, and recognize it, then rethink how you think about the failure to the point that you only see the good, and the potential for more.

No Need To Rush Into It

Everyone has to start somewhere, and not everyone progresses at the same pace.  Take it slow, take it easy, let it come to you, let it flow out of you.  Keep it natural, don't force it.  If you're not feeling it, move on to something else.  Wait until the mood strikes you, and then harness the power of the moment as best you can.  Making something out of nothing ... a song from a blank piece of paper and quietness.  You have certain gifts, certain abilities, certain talents.  You can never be great at everything.  If you're like me, your singing voice is politely called "interesting" by others who've heard it.  Hey, that's something, at least.  Stay positive, and be thankful for what you do have.

Why Not Continue When You Can Amaze Yourself

Making music is fun for me.  Why would I stop?  No reason.  If you are able and feel the urge, do what you can, when you can.  Find time, make time, do it, make it happen.  It is magic, this thing we call music.  I am amazed by it.  What others would call noise that I make, I call it magic.  It's astounding to me sometimes to come up with what I do.  It's beyond physical.  It's spiritual for me, and it's gathering up invisible forces that exist in the world and working with them to your advantage.  Taking particles and rearranging them with unexplainable power...that's what music making is to me.

Amazing Others May Never Happen

If you're like me, a few people close to you in your life who know you well have given you positive feedback about your music, and you actually trust them.  If they liked something you did too about your music, isn't that a huge momentum-building bonus?  It must be.  It might be jokingly what you refer to as not being so great, but it is also you admitting to shortcomings and imperfections, but liking the overall result - the collective good parts that make the thing you created pleasant to hear.  Even when they didn't interpret it as you did, if others liked the parts or aspects that you yourself also liked, then you've got something important.  You've made something someone else enjoyed.  You've made their lives better because of it, however small a contribution.

Studio Dreams

The method of delivering songs to people for me is making recordings and letting people choose to discover and listen to them.  All of my songs can be streamed free, and if you want to purchase them, you can.  This seems to be the modern model.  Everyone and their brother has a home computer-based recording studio nowadays, and I am proud to say I was among the first wave of people to do such a thing.  It's where I can be alone and make things up.  It's also where I can take the time to get it right - that is, to get it sounding slightly better than how it would sound if I played it for you live and in person.  A big factor with this is I'm able to record multiple tracks with multiple vocals and instruments (all my own), and blend them to my liking.  This I couldn't do as a solo performer or even with a band, it wouldn't necessarily come out sounding how I envisioned it.  Would the recordings be any better if I practiced them live and solo in front of people a hundred times first?  Due to unlimited "takes" available in multitrack digital recording studios, I agrue no.

To Perform Or Not To Perform

Seasoned performers advocate performing to songwriters who are not.  By that I mean that in my life I've run across many different circles of songwriters most of whom cut their teeth and paid their dues playing covers in live settings for many years prior to writing their own songs.  They think their path was one all songwriters should take.  Although I was at one time in my life a live cover song performer on and off for a few short years, I gave it up a long time ago, and other songwriters don't understand why, and when I remind them I'm a terrible singer, they say I shouldn't care and should get back out there anyway, due to the value of audience feedback.  I would argue that many of the best and most beloved Beatles songs came after they decided to stop playing live and focus on songwriting.  Like anything, I advocate for doing it to be better, as in "do songwriting to get better at songwriting."  I'm more like the late career Beatles in that way...I decided long ago to hunker down in my home studio and write and record songs.

No Yearning To Be Heard, Just A Slight Hope

Having people appreciate your music is a great thing when you're a songwriter, but it doesn't need to come from being a live performer.  There's no need for people to take it so seriously that they believe you can't call yourself a songwriter unless you become well known, or have popularity in one way or another.  It's a craft, and a hobby, and it's fun.  To me, I have fun with it, and I call it what I call it - writing and recording songs.  That's what I do.  If regular performers want to call what I do something different than that, I don't have a problem with it.  I call it what I want.  I do only what I want.  It's a creative outlet and I like the parts of it I like.  It's my free time.  I don't feel this burning desire to get polite applause and kind compliments from playing my songs in a bar or coffee place in front of people.  Wanting it bad is something that comes from within.  I don't need people to hear my music badly enough to make time for getting gigs or showing up to open mic nights anymore.  I'm happy enough writing and recording songs the best I can and putting them out there and hoping they'll be discovered and liked, while realistically knowing not much of that will happen.  I'm cool with that.

What It Means To Be A Songwriter

I claim to be a songwriter, and there's proof out there to show that I have written many songs I think are good. People out there in the world might question this claim, so it occurred to me that I should delve deeper into what it means to say someone is a songwriter.

What Is A Song? Simple Definitions

First, one must consider whether or not the things in question are what I say they are. It's arguable to say that what I call songs I've written are even songs at all, so I decided to take to the internet to see if mine qualify. "song" has some arguably official definitions you can find online from fairly reputable and reliable sources that are somewhat simple:

• a short piece of music with words that are sung
• a short musical composition of words and music
• a poetical composition or poem easily set to music 

My verdict then, is that what I call songs that I've written fit such definitions, and thus indeed are actual songs, and hence and therefore, they qualify.

Proof and Quantity Might Be Important

Once I've established that I've written songs, a next question might be: how many? As if quantity might be important criteria to establish credibility necessary to call one's self a songwriter. I saw Tom Petty being interviewed on TV once where he said something like:

"You have to write at least 100 songs before you can call yourself a songwriter."

So, if there's a quantity issue, I'm close to having that covered, since I've released over 70 original songs on recordings that are currently published and "in print" and being offered for sale that you can purchase in many online music stores like Amazon, Google Play, iTunes, and Bandcamp. This fact resolves any proof issues as well. One of the reasons I've thought it was cool to get my music into stores online is the fact that I wanted proof to be out there that I have written songs and recorded them.

I'm well on my way to meeting the Tom Petty requirement if you'll take my word for it that I've written way more than what I've released - over 300 at last count, many more since I stopped counting a decade or so ago. I stopped counting because it doesn't matter so much, when you take into account how many of those are "attempts" that are not good. It's a matter of opinion, as all appreciation of all art is.

Quality and the Eye (ear) of the Beholder (listener)

As for the "quality" issue then, know that I've released my best. This means that hundreds of my songs have not been release-worthy. If you write tons of songs, and they are all terrible, are you still a songwriter? Does a bear shit in the woods? Beyond that, one might wonder what even qualifies as a quality song, and what standards exist. You can talk popularity, you can talk hooks, and you can talk "you know it when you hear it" stuff. It's up to the rest of the world I suppose to offer up their own critical judgment about whether my songs are any good or not. So far, there aren't many reviews online, but I hope there will be more in the future, and that they will be favorable.

I imagine that art for personal satisfaction is one thing, but offering it up to the public for appreciation and consumption is another. I wanted to go there out of curiosity about whether others would like my songs, and would be thrilled if I became aware that more people out there in the world like the songs I've written for any reason. I'd also be interested to know more specifics about why people like them, I'll admit. I'm just happy to know they're out there and available for discovery and liking. It's hard to explain why, but I guess it's because I thought they were personally appealing enough to not keep them totally private.

Conclusions and Beyond

My definition of what it means to be a songwriter is that when your enjoyment of writing songs gives you a level of satisfaction with the craft that makes you want to share your creations with others, so that they might also be similarly satisfied from listening to them, you can consider yourself a songwriter. My way of doing that is recording them and releasing those recordings, since I'm not much of a performer, nor do I have a desire to be one. The limitations of my vocal abilities are significant, and quality of singing is important for song performance quality.

A next stage of considering someone to be a songwriter, particularly when they are not performers themselves, would be whether or not other musicians have performed or recorded the songwriter's songs. I've made no effort make musicians aware that my songs are available for them to perform and/or record other than releasing them, and stating that they are available for licensing on my web site. Not a lot of intentional effort to pitch is happening, but should there be an interest, I'm ready to offer up permission quickly and with reasonable and fair terms.

Why Lyrics Matter

I am of the belief that lyrics matter.  Although there are times when I love a good instrumental, be it rock, classical, or jazz, when the subject of songs comes up, I am of the opinion that I prefer the types that have lyrics most often, and I tend to value those whose lyrics I particularly appreciate.  Good lyrics make songs good because they are capable as standing alone without music, but are supported well by the music.  As opposed to songs in which the music makes the lyrics stand out, there is no risk of unintentionally remembering lyrics you don't like when the thing you like best is the lyric.

I saw a documentary of the 70s rock band called Kansas recently on TV, and a moving statement made about one of their songs Carry On My Wayward Son, was that every part of the song was itself a hook - the intro, the melody, the solo, the verses, the chorus, etc. as well as the philosophical lyrics.  Indeed it seems to be a song where the whole thing arguably hooks you into wanting to continue to listen to it all the way through.  It's rare that a song fires on all cylinders like that.

Fluff and filler without meaning or intrigue can be present in a good song, no doubt.  Often there are only portions of lyrics you like, just as with the music.  Great songs however seem to have memorable lyrics that move you to feel certain emotions and have the power to provoke thoughts in addition to having pleasant music.

A part of me agrees with people who say the lyrics don't matter.  Particularly with danceable music, if you love the instrumental hooks and the groove, you don't care what the lyrics are about, nor do you even notice much of the time anything beyond a catchy line or phrase from the chorus - usually the title.  Let's face it, lyrics aren't always the most memorable part of a song you like, but another part of me nonetheless believes that they are important.

Your interpretation is unique, and you create your own images, maybe from subliminal messages, or maybe from indirect things the subliminal messages lead you to think about.  Even with words that just sound cool and are not meant to have a particular meaning, words intended to flow together with other words well, or words strung together in a stream-of-consciousness style that conjure memories or visions in one's mind are all making contributions to the song's likability.

When music videos were a new thing, it was like sensory overload.  Sometimes the video was so interesting, you found yourself focused on it so much, you almost didn't notice much about the song.  It can arguably detract from the music listening experience.  Maybe in the future we'll have robot massages or even smell maker devices that accompany music, who knows?  Watching a live band is exciting, but sitting in a room with your eyes closed while listening to a record is the best way to enjoy music for me.  And music with lyrics is just enough take me away to a happy place.

Instrumental breaks within songs with lyrics give you the joy of instrumental music along with that of music with words.  That's why I usually include such a passage when recording music myself.  It gives the listener time to reflect on the words so far, and get lost in thought for a few moments.

As a songwriter, you can make lyrics fit music, or you can make music fit lyrics.  Every single time, however, it's a little of both, depending on how you think of it.  Maybe Bob Dylan has the lyrics typed out ahead of time, and maybe Paul McCartney has the music completed first, however, when fitting one to the other to form a song that has both lyrics and music, some of the making it fit work happens in Bob or Paul's head.  This means that whether putting pen to paper or finger to guitar string, there is thought involved which serves as a chicken/egg scenario in my way of thinking.

Sometimes it's obvious when listening to music the lyrics fall short in comparison to the music, or vice versa.  Either can be disappointing.  I don't know if you can call it a poem or not if you're just reading lyrics without music, and certainly a karaoke track of a song without the singing of lyrics would qualify as music.  When both can stand alone and be considered good, then when they are blended together, you've got greatness.

Subjectivity trumps universal truths when it comes to what makes a good song good.  Computer programs can only analyze so much about hit songs, and these analytics don't enable them to automatically create hit songs.  Your opinion counts, your taste matters, and your tastes change based on many factors.  Maybe unconsciously, a song's lyrics have an effect on you even when you can't recite them from memory.

Conversely, it's easy to recite verbatim terrible meaningless lyrics from songs you've heard before.  Whether you wanted to or not, they get stuck in your head.  Often I find a classic rock radio station while in my car and realize I know all of the words of some dreadful song from the 80s that was popular when I was in high school or something.  It's hard to admit, but these have other things going for them musically that made them memorable, despite them making you cringe.  So bad, they're memorable, perhaps.

The introductory overview of the wikipedia entry for the word "lyrics" has a couple sentences that prove my point:

The meaning of lyrics can either be explicit or implicit. Some lyrics are abstract, almost unintelligible, and, in such cases, their explication emphasizes form, articulation, meter, and symmetry of expression.

Some come right out and say it, while others allow you to guess at the intended meaning.  Some don't make much sense, but just sound great with the music.   Some spark your imagination of what a music video for the song would look like.  Some are like hearing someone tell you a great story.  Some make you see the world in a different way, while others sink in from repetition alone.

You can easily study, read, play a game, or just think your own thoughts while instrumental music is in the background.  It's not so easy when the song has lyrics.  When songs have lyrics, you tend to take notice, listen more intently, and have the opportunity to be more fulfilled as a result.  This is why I think lyrics matter.  There is potential for more gratification.

Scrutinize Your Music Marketing Methods - A Lesson Learned From the Old Newsboys

What is the deal with these "old newsboys" anyway?  They've always creeped me out since I was a kid because they are like some strange gang hanging out at intersections who approach your car at stoplights on cold winter nights and hit you up for cash.  They seem to strike just when people are scurrying to do Christmas shopping and there’s the related traffic and stress, when people just want to get where they’re going on icy roads and get the unpleasantness of the season overwith.  People are in a hurry more than ever, and this seems like something that must’ve started in the 1950s in neighborhoods like those in the TV shows Happy Days or Leave It To Beaver, but it may not be right for today’s world, in which you’re just trying to keep those car doors locked and get home safely.

Then at a red light there’s a group of weirdos who try to get you to roll down your window and give them money, and somehow they are affiliated with newspapers, but you’re not sure how exactly, and nobody seems to know what their deal is when you’re a kid and you ask about them.  So, you forget about it until the next year, and then it happens again.  No one knows the story, but you get the gist that it’s for charity, and most tend not to question the do-gooders of the world.  I do though, and that’s what this post is about - questioning an old tradition that I’ve never understood.  I feel a little guilty it irks me still, but it does due to my own ignorance.

I would be with my mom in the car and some man is obviously asking people to roll down their windows and talk to them and give them money.  Usually, this is something you avoid, especially in a crime-ridden city like Flint, Michigan where I'm from.  For some strange reason, its ok for people to do this when involved with a charity due to it being a tradition I guess.  Other people in other cars seem to want to engage these people in conversation, as if they know the people or have questions.  All this creates traffic hassles, people not being able to turn and make the green light in time, getting mad about it, honking their horns.

These were scary looking men who seemed to all be fat and have beards.  Could be it's just a coincidence that a lot of men in Flint happen to have beards.  They always stink because they all seem to be smokers (again, a lot of people smoke in impoverished former factory towns) and I swear many of them stunk like alcohol, probably because people either gave them whiskey, or they brought their own to stay warm out there on a dark cold winter night in the city streets.  Could be it was spiced rum or spiked coffee, since they always seemed to also be holding plastic coffee cups with lids.  

Something about how old white men talk in these parts added to the intimidation with their aggressive style and low, gruff smoker/drinker voices too.  Come to think of it, writers have always been known to be big on smoking.  Maybe they used to report news stories for the paper, or maybe they used to deliver papers as boys?  They’re definitely now all old, especially to a little kid with his mom in a car.  Granted, they are all freezing probably, but I suspect they must’ve also been wondering in the back of their minds whether or not this was the best approach to getting people to donate money to help others in winter.  Their grammar and word choice, or the general way in which they spoke also arose suspicion in me because they didn’t seem to be smart enough or at the very least speak well enough to be professional writers in the first place, if they were indeed writers or worked for newspaper companies.  

Needless to say at every encounter they have freaked me out, and I realize this may just have been freak occurrences only I experienced.  They scared you in a similar way that fake Santa Clauses in malls scare little kids.  I think it's because I'm never quite sure what they're up to and why they take the approach they do.  Also, I'm never quite sure who the heck they are exactly.  So, I get the fact that they are carrying the old-school style of shoulder bags full of newspapers, possibly fake spoof newspapers, possibly real.  Like almost all topics in this blog, I can’t help venting about this confusion I have.  If you’ve read others, or talked to me for very long in person, you know I’m prone to dead horse beating, and I’m sure this is yet another expository example.

Back before vehicle delivery and the internet-driven decline of the industry in general, kids used these bags to deliver newspapers on foot or on bikes.  We've all seen black and white movies where they sell papers out of these bags on the street in big cities.  Invariably, I'd ask the parent in the car who these guys are, what they want, what their deal is, and the parent never gave me an answer that left me satisfied.  (Keep in mind if I was saying all this that you’re currently reading in person, my tone of voice would let you know I’m smiling as I say it, thinking it’s humorous, and maybe with a Seinfeld-esque style.  :)

I wondered then, and still wonder now, probably because the word "old" is in their group name, "Are they former paper boys?, Are they former news writers?, Are they retired?  Did technology and consolidation in the media business force them to resort to these tactics?  Are they affiliated with the local newspaper The Flint Journal?  Are they unemployed now?  Did they get fired?  Did they get downsized or laid off?  Are they currently on strike and selling spoof papers in the streets to make extra money?" These are all legitimate questions, particularly that last one because Flint is arguably known for strikes as much as poverty and crime.  

So now that the newspaper business is all online, I thought I'd look into this by searching the web for answers to eliminate some of the confusion.  When I hit up the About page for the Old Newsboys of Flint website, it got even more complicated immediately, because the first sentence tells you about some founder dude whose last name was 'Young'.  Okay, so I quickly got the picture from the next few paragraphs that they help give clothes to kids at Christmas time - a great thing to do we can all agree.  

So we know they're out to help kids, yet as a kid myself, these guys scared the hell out of me.  Bundled up, some in ski masks, drinking coffee, gruff low voices, smoking cigarettes.  Again, perhaps typical of most old men in Flint.  Then I read on, and it starts to get creepier again.  Early on in the history of the organization, it says prisoners were used as staff members!  Additionally, it says the group actually started in Detroit, and was called the Goodfellows, so I immediately start thinking of the movie Goodfellas and the mafia murdering people.  Still creeped out by their whole approach as an adult here.  

Google searches bring up the fact that there are other, similar groups out there in places like Lansing and Toledo, all of whom seem to do similar things, some having more of a specialty - like only shoes and boots for kids, while others cooperate with other charities for christmas presents of all kinds for kids and even families.  The Lansing one sells a "spoof" newspaper, which is produced by the local newspaper, the Lansing State Journal, but the newsboys themselves are volunteers and do not work there, and it's not clear whether some of them used to work there or not.  It's a terrible thing to question or criticize or ridicule a charity, but I think they are in need of a marketing overhaul and improved practices.  

Maybe I'm the only one out there who has ever been scared of these guys as a kid, and maybe I'm the only one who has been and still is slightly confused by these guys.  Charity paper sellers approaching your car at busy intersections and holding up traffic is odd to me, but the more I read, the more I realize these people have good hearts, and volunteers for good causes is something we need more of in this country.  Although I don't know for sure, I've read this is on the decline in our country, and this is not something I should be negative about.  

Many a blog includes rants, raves, gripes, grievances, and mine is no different, as this post may provide further evidence for.  I’d like to think of this one as an observance of a phenomenon that doesn’t quite seem right to me as I try to understand things I run across in this world.  It’s a sharing of a take on an experience.  I see room for improvement in the approach and method of getting people to donate, not the fact that their intent is good, even though I admit I’m a charity begins at home kind of guy myself.  Getting people to buy your music is basically like charity solicitation come to think of it.  Lord knows the music industry is rapidly changing in the last couple decades.

The difference with my blog from most is I try to make each post somehow relate to my hobby of writing songs.  Maybe this observance could be used as a starting point to craft a story song, perhaps in the blues or folk traditions.  It would be about a tradition, and traditions should be questioned and improved in my way of thinking, and maybe a satirical parody would be best.  Songs are supposed to make people feel better about their lives, so I just don’t know.  It just occurred to me:   The takeaway here could very well be that it’s the approach to getting people to become aware of and possibly buy your music that you have to be careful about.  The lesson is maybe that being considerate of the methods you use to self-market and re-examining for improvement and appropriateness are important.  Rethink, revise, modernize with the times.  Periodically question what has been traditionally tried and true.

Maybe it’s just terrible what I’ve done here, being critical of people who try to help other people and help make the world a better place.  I'll probably burn in hell for writing this, but I was already going to do that anyway.  This is just one guy's experience with a charity that has some confusing things about it that don't quite make sense to an inquisitive kid.  As an adult now, that inquisitive kid still can't quite wrap his head around this whole thing.  So it's "no kid without a Christmas" or some similar motto, which is straight-up noble and wonderful and kind, but why the affiliation with newspapers?  Scare mothers and kids in cars to help other kids and at the same time help the newspaper publishing business at the same time?  I don't get it yet, but I see there is a book available for sale about this, which I might buy to get my questions answered.  

In the meantime, I felt compelled to raise this concerned and confused reaction I’ve had to this organization and their odd on-street solicitation events.  Really, I’m reaching out here, in a quest for better understanding of what the deal is with this Old Newsboys group.  I just want to know more to satisfy my curiosity and hopefully improve my ignorant perspective and change the way I’ve always felt about this group.

Maybe someone out there will read this, relate to and agree with some of it, and even comment on it themselves. Until then, if you’re a songwriter reader, get opinions on your approach to making people aware of your songs with the hope they’ll buy some, and be cognizant of any potentially creepy sales techniques.  We songwriters and musicians all want a larger audience of appreciators, and actions you take to help it grow require some careful consideration first.

R.E.M. Unplugged 1991 2001 The Complete Sessions - CD Review

I got the R.E.M. “Unplugged 1991 2001 The Complete Sessions” 2-disc album for a Christmas gift this year.  The wife stuffed it in my stocking, and I’m glad she did.  Now that I’ve found time to listen to it several times, I recommend it to anyone who ever liked this band, and to anyone who generally likes the MTV Unplugged concept.

Getting the album made me look up stuff about them online while listening as I sort of rediscovered a band I liked back in the 80s. An interesting thing I learned is that apparently, they've called it quits and broken up permanently as a band. That made me think it will be interesting to see if they resist temptation to re-form ten years from now like so many bands have, and possibly even more interesting if they do reunite, because maybe time will show they were better than we all thought and that we missed them more than we thought we would and that a long break actually made them better than ever. Something gives me a hunch they're the types to stay broken up for good, but I'm not sure why.

They just sort of did what made sense to them at the time each step of the way and lucked out without really trying too hard it seems like. It's cool they split their songwriting royalties equally four ways, all contributing to writing the songs together, and it's also cool they focused on catchy tunes and vague lyrics that let the listener derive their own meanings, and it's cool they both rocked electrically and acoustically, and they weren't afraid to try out a lot of different types of songs. Listening to this double album and learning a bit more about them online made me appreciate them even more. Also, I saw one of those behind the music rockumentary things about them on MTV recently which was cool. These experiences all gave me further insight that made me appreciate them more, and actually made me want to have more of their back catalog in my collection someday.

Why I’ve always liked them

I was a fan of the first few albums by this band, and had vinyl and cassettes of them back in the mid-late 80s, which I'd since lost, and never replaced with CDs, nor did I purchase any of their 90s or 2000s releases, although I was aware of a few of their songs that got on the radio during these years.  I honestly can’t say I remember a video of theirs except Losing My Religion, and I don’t recall ever seeing these actual shows when they were on MTV, although I vaguely think I might have seen the first one.

Like most people back then, I liked them because they were considered an “underground” band at the time, whatever that means, and for reasons unknown, they were a popular college band during the mid-late 80s when I was in college myself.  My roommate even had an REM poster on the wall of our dorm room that was kind of psychedelic looking.  When I listen to college radio nowadays, I don’t get it - the music seems terrible to me, but times change.  The were never awesome, but they were nonetheless appealing.

Each band member played their instruments well, and the harmony vocals and arpeggio guitar style really made a noticeable contribution.  Overall, I liked the slight hint of folk you could hear in their sound, even though they still rocked hard with electric guitars.  They had catchy melodies for sure, and those stood out as opposed to bands who featured long guitar solos.  Something about them was different from other bands of the day, but it was - and still is - hard to describe.

Understanding the singer

You can’t talk to someone about REM without mention of the lead vocalist.  No one could understand the words, but the music was cool and they had a cool name.  So, you have no idea what the songs are about, but the band is really good.  The singer seemed to have some type of reluctant tortured poet type of a vibe.  You couldn’t really sing along, although many tried, and what words you could make out seemed to paint some interesting pictures you thought you could relate to.  That’s all we really knew about them.  There was no internet back then.  

You weren’t sure about the singer, because he seemed to possibly be ambiguously gay.  This fact probably allowed them to gain a larger following because it wasn’t common in the 80s for straight guys to admit to their straight friends that they liked anyone who was gay - musician or otherwise. REM’s singer was far from Elton John who you would later admit you liked anyway.  Despite the post-80s discovery about bands like Judas Priest having gay band members, straight guys didn’t care as much and didn’t necessarily stop liking those bands.  It shouldn’t matter, and the point is, it seems to matter less now than back then.

Tolerance and acceptance change over time with the help of television.  Now because of the internet, you can read that Michael Stipe prefers to be called queer and has dated men and women.  This makes straight guys cringe just as much, but then again, you can easily overlook it when you read the rest of the band are straight, some having wives and kids even, and somehow it’s more forgivable when it’s only the lead singer who was/is gay.  This sounds bad, I know, but whether unfortunate or not, I think there’s truth to it.

The unplugged sound

The unplugged concept was interesting at the time, and still is, to me anyway.  Rock music played with acoustic instruments.  This album combines the two separate times they were on that MTV show, ten years apart.  The main difference is the drummer played congas/bongos on the first one, and the second had a full drum kit.  I liked both sounds, but maybe the hand percussion session a little better.  There’s something about their songs that sounded old even when they were new, but now they’re not a band anymore, and I’m old.  The acoustic versions make the songs sound even more timeless.  Anyway...

Best on album:  

If I were burning a favorites CD or desert island mixtape of songs from this album, I would put these on there probably:

from Disc One:

Pop Song 89 (best on this disc)

Losing My Religion

Fall on Me

Love is All Around (cover)

It's The End Of The World As We Know It

Rotary Eleven (instrumental)

from Disc Two:

Find The River (best on this disc)

So. Central Rain (a close second-best)

Losing My Religion

The One I Love

I've Been High

The above were the standouts for me, the others just okay.  I did some skipping to these from others during the first few listens in my car, since I had limited drive time.  During subsequent listens when I had more patience and was in the right mood, I appreciated most of the other songs as well to a certain extent.  Like most albums, some songs you just prefer over others and this was no exception.

What was missing:

I wish they would've done unplugged versions of some other songs of theirs I like, of course.  These that come to mind would’ve been interesting to include, and these are songs that would also probably be on my best of R.E.M. mixtape also, whether live or studio:

Radio Free Europe

Don't Go Back To Rockville

Driver 8

Pretty Persuasion

Can't Get There From Here

Superman

Orange Crush

Everybody Hurts

Nightswimming

Man on the Moon

What's The Frequency Kenneth

Nostalgia a factor

This band was one of my influences, just as Violent Femmes and Talking Heads were during this era.  Seems that most people I knew in college in Michigan (1985-1989) liked REM, and most had the Murmur album, although Reckoning was also a popular one, and Document.  They had a cool style about them with almost an element of folk in their rock, and they seemed more intelligent somehow than your average rock band.  You could like REM and still be cool in this time/place, but it was harder to admit the same about Duran Duran, for example.

The most popular albums you’d see alongside REM back then were James Taylor greatest hits, Bob Marley Legend, Earth Wind & Fire greatest, Led Zeppelin II, Talking Heads Speaking In Tongues, U2, The Police Synchronicity, Violent Femmes, Prince 1999 or Purple Rain, MJ Thriller, maybe some Journey, Steely Dan, Madonna, miscellaneous Grateful Dead, and some Howard Jones album for some god-awful reason.  Just a few that come to mind that I saw a lot of in that place.  The people with REM also probably had some Ramones, Neil Young and some Tom Waits in their collections too, come to think of it.

So there was some nostalgia to hear a band I like from back in my late teens play acoustic and in front of an audience, playing a few tunes I’d heard, and throwing in some I’d never heard but really liked such as Find The River, and surprising ones like that jazz instrumental which was cool.  You can’t help but wonder what they would’ve been like with a different singer or better lyrics, like maybe if they would’ve stuck with that Warren Zevon side project, and you can see that they sort of ran their course, so it’s not a huge loss that they broke up, not like the Beatles.  Again, the melodies and the overall sound of the songs were very pleasurable.

What I learned

I like R.E.M. more than I remembered.  I love this band playing unplugged.  Some bands don't sound good when you're used to a more electric sound, but R.E.M. played this format well.  I like the congas/bongos on disc 1 a lot.  The original drummer was great playing this style of percussion, and it sort of fits the theme, although the second disc with a real drum kit is fine too.  The bass and backing vocals really enhance the sound.  A big part of the sound is good harmony vocals and melodic bass playing.  The keyboards really enhance the overall sound, whether organ, piano, or especially the accordion.  

The melodies on the songs I like are outstanding.  Probably due to a combination of the guitar playing (or mandolin) and the singing, the melodies are beautiful.  The lyrics are only arguably good, and as is typical, some lyrics you can't hear to make out the words, while others you can make out don't make a lot of sense, but they paint pictures and let you envision your own meaning, so it's mostly a good thing, and the singer’s voice is uniquely good.  This band had a certain magical blend of things, tight, professional, and played really well together live.

I also learned that if I ever do a live album, I will want to include as many songs as I can that I know are people’s favorites, which is hard to do because of the limited space.  You can’t please everyone.  

Wrapping it up

Concluding here, my takeaway is that their overall live & unplugged sound is pretty much how I would like my own live band to sound some day, if I ever form one, which I probably won't.  I would probably augment some songs with marimba, slide guitar, and harmonica, but otherwise, the elements here would be ideal for my music - including accordion, harmony vocals, mandolin, and an extra guitar.  I've learned things from listening to this how I might improve my studio recordings, since I do go for an unplugged sort of a sound on my albums.  They were an odd band that didn’t easily fit a particular mold in the 80s and beyond, they had a great combination of things that made for a unique overall sound, they play well live, and they wrote some great songs.  Playing acoustically, you could hear even better the fact that this band wrote some great songs.  Glad I got this CD.

Could The End Be Near? Decade Milestones A Telltale Sign? History Says No.

Here it is 2015 and I just realized I started this blog a decade ago.  Happy New Year, by the way, whoever you are (voices in my head?).  Haven't posted much, but have ramped it up in recent years a bit.  Still have no idea if anyone is reading it, but don't care, since it feels good to write about my hobby here at blog.scottcooley.com.

A couple years after I started this blog, I started my website.  Neither was hard to figure out.  I have intentionally not taken it too seriously, choosing only to post content to either when I felt like it.  Slowly but surely I've steadily made improvements and upgrades over the years.  Just like my songwriting hobby, I've eased into the blogging and web site stuff slowly.

Last year marked a decade of releasing an album every other year, and in four more years it will be a decade of selling my music officially in online music stores.  Slow and steady improvement in all of this stuff, in my own opinion anyway.  Maybe 10 years is a nice number for a life chapter, although to be honest, I started this whole hobby in 1989, so it's going on a quarter of a century strong so far, and despite a few droughts of a few months here and there, has shown no signs of letting up.

Only when the urge strikes do I even attempt updating the blog, the website, writing a new song, or recording a new song.  Seems like since I didn't follow this pattern for releasing albums, opting instead to stick to a steady schedule, it would make sense if I tried to write one blog post per month.  I pulled it off last year for the first time.  Unlike my album release schedule, I didn't have a stockpile of posts first ready to record and release well into the future.

It just so happens that I'm now really almost out of songs, and am in the process of finishing recording all the songs I ever set out to record.  More formally record in multitrack digital, anyway.  The first take cassette tapes don't count, in my mind, since they were mostly practice exercises instead of actual songs.  I've gotten a little better here and there over the years, in small noticeable ways, and more than anything involved with the craft, I'm better at rewriting now. 

Re-writing and then either re-recording or recording new the songs is what I should be able to finish up by the end of this year, considering available free time.  There are about 40 or so remaining to do.  These are the bottom of the barrell songs that I've deemed just barely borderline-worthy enough to rewrite, or for good reason have procrastinated recording over the years.  Many of the re-records are ones that didn't make the cut on past albums.

So, my next release should be the best of the last batch of not very good songs, but I feel compelled to exhaust the current lyric/chord stockpile.  About another 10-15 beyond those 40 are lyric-only documents I need to write music for.  Then there are about 50 more documents of starts to songs and very incomplete lyrics I might revisit.

Of course there will be weed-outs, and not enough to result in two album's worth of material.  The drawback here is I'm possibly wasting time on songs that are not good enough to begin with, instead of writing new ones.  I can't help but finish these up though, and just maybe the next dozen you hear won't be half bad.  It could possibly be that clearing my plate of this song candidates wrap-up project will be liberating a spur on another creative period.  Time will tell.

I'm stating all this because I haven't felt like writing new songs at all lately for several months now.  Part of the reason is I want to get all these remaining unfinished songwriting/recording related tasks done first before I switch back to the create new from scratch mode.  It will truly feel fresh when that happens, because I won't have the dark cloud hanging over my head making me think I have unfinished songs I need to be working on.

It could be the hobby has run its course.  There are many famous artists I've read about who have a creative spurt - usually for about a decade - and then the desire fades and they don't write/record anymore.  Usually a lot of contributing factors and reasons for this, many unique to the individual's circumstances, but also it's the kind of thing that seems to have a tendency to slow down and conclude naturally on its own.

The 2016 album will therefore have a feel of a b-sides or rarities or previously-unreleased type of compilation, and it may well signal a final album like you might expect.  Maybe not, but I'll be fine with it either way.  Maybe I'll find a new hobby and move on to something else.  You never know, but it will be fun to have a feeling of closure on these never-quite-finished tasks on my hobby to-do list.

When you’re dead, your songs won’t matter, so why hold back?

If you’re like me – a songwriter and independent recording artist who sells a few recordings online once in a while – from time to time your thoughts inevitably turn to questioning why you bother to write songs in the first place.  This usually happens when you’re starting to write songs again for your next album release like I am now.  Thinking about writing songs makes you think about what to write about, and that can make your mind wander to the point where you wonder what the point of this craft is.

Then if you think well into the future, you realize it’s probably not in the cards for you to write a song that becomes a standard that will live on well past your death.  The more you think along those lines, it can lead you to think about why you don’t release certain songs.  Hardly anyone buys them anyway.  I have a list of my self-ranked songs, some of which I’ve recorded, and some which haven’t even made the cut to record beyond a first take at all.  On these lists, next to the song title I write the reason it didn’t make the cut of my own, strange weeding-out methods.  They’re abbreviated.

My evaluation key, which I also sometimes write next to each song, is like this:  Definite Keeper (DK), Keeper (K), Borderline Keeper (BK), Almost Borderline Keeper (ABK).  Sometimes I can’t quite decide and will even do a DK/K, or a BK/ABK for the in-betweeners, sometimes later on deciding to bump them up or down for some reason.  This is my own method I came up with which sort of evolved after a songwriting friend and I used to rate each others songs with a 1/4K, ½ K, and full K when we were both new to the hobby.  I did color coding on a batch of songs once, using white as “waiting for upgrade/downgrade decision,” and have even done a bold/italics/strikethrough method, but DK/K/BK/ABK is what I’ve settled on.

I’ve never released an ABK, but through rewriting, I have actually boosted a few ABKs to BKs, but it’s rare.  Also rare are DKs, and I can honestly say I’ve only had a handful of those in twenty-plus years of writing songs.  Don’t get me wrong, you probably haven’t heard of any, but if you’re one of my few true fans who’ve bought every album, you might be able to pick some out we’d both agree were DKs.  I would hope this would be the case anyway, but one never quite knows for sure which ones others will consider your best.

There are many I don’t even bother typing in the list – the definite non-keepers.  Some of the borderliners end up getting released, some never do, some get moved on to the next album candidate list with specific notes about what to improve when worthy of revisiting for a potential re-write/re-record.  There’s always a reason for these designations, and I usually put them in parentheses after the song title, typically only for those that didn’t make it through the final weed-out process.  It’s the reasons though that I have to look back on and wonder what state of mind I was in when I wrote them.  Some of the reasons might even be funny to some of you out there.

Here are a few of those parenthetical “reasons to not release or record” from my notes:
• music too simple
• wife didn’t like it
• potential stereotyping interpretation
• too personal
• music a possible rip-off
• unconventional
• monotonous
• forced rhymes
• whimsical
• potential inferred drug reference
• lyrics too hokey
• too much of a chick song
• too much like some other song I wrote
• too long
• too slow
• too conceited
• controversial subject matter
• lyrics too simple
• lyrics great, music terrible
• music doesn’t fit lyrics
• too negative
• too sappy
• unclear meaning
• sexual connotations
• contains swear word

I’ve got many, many more reasons I’ve weeded out the hundreds of songs I’ve written you’ve never heard. One of the things you do when you’re all out of new songs to record and having writer’s block is you re-read some of these lists and notes.  You start thinking you might’ve had some that were borderline that you could tweak here and there to launch them to keeper status.  This rarely works, as I pretty much subscribe to the garbage in/garbage out principle, but it is possible.  Sometimes you can have great lyrics that just didn’t work at all with the music, and after a long period of forgetting about the song, you can fit them to a totally different chord progression and melody (assuming you forgot the original melody).  Other times you can revist a song title note that says great tune, terrible lyrics, and write brand new lyrics and make it work. You don’t want to waste great musical or lyrical ideas, and you never know when you might have something new that will fit.

As I’m in the midst of such a scenario here lately, thinking those “what is the point of all this” thoughts, I’ve come to a new realization:  Why not release some of those, since hardly anyone will buy them, and since it’s not going to matter after I’m dead and gone from this world anyway?  Some might turn out to be other people’s favorites.  Maybe the more controversial, more edgy, more personal, etc., songs would actually be better and more well-received than the universally-appealing, safe stuff I’ve been putting out!  Since I have no reputation to begin with, there’s absolutely no danger of it becoming worse.  The few true fans out there might be pleasantly surprised.  I’ve somewhat already proven to myself that it can work well.

Some that I agonized over, yet released anyway:

I need to do more of this.  I’ve received favorable feedback on all of the above.  I debated about releasing a song with a swear word in it for an embarrassingly long time, eventually decided to go for it, and lo and behold, it became a fan favorite (Mackinac Island).  After that I thought what many an artist has, which is that I didn’t want to give people more of the same so as not to repeat myself and not bore them or bore myself or become known as the artist who writes a particular type of song.  Now I’m leaning toward trying hard to not worry so much about what people think and just release away, self-weeding methods be damned.  Throw caution to the wind, since in the grand scheme, it will be a drop in the ocean.  Maybe this new approach I’m forming will be closer to what true art should be about in the first place.  Stay tuned for my 2016 release, as it just may surprise you.

The conclusion is don’t think twice.  Rate your own songs once, then trust your first gut feeling about whether to release them or not.  Don’t waste too much time on lists and notes and rating systems.  Go ahead and put the music out there.  Don’t let good songs go unheard because you’re too worried about what people will think of you.  People understand the art isn’t necessarily representative of the artist’s personal views and they know you write from other character’s perspectives.  When you’re not around anymore, it’s not going to matter to anyone, so as a t-shirt I saw once read “don’t die with the music in you.”

From Nobility To Notability

As I’ve said many a time and in many a way on this blog previously that it would be nice if my music could gain more recognition, awareness, reach a larger audience, etc.  As long as I don’t have to be a famous celebrity where people would recognize me in public and bother me.  That wouldn’t be much fun.  It’s not that I’m after popularity for popularity’s sake, but rather, I think what I do is in some ways sort of a noble pursuit (writing and recording songs), and perhaps deserving of being more notable somehow.  I’ve looked into what that means recently.

People are actually buying my music here and there lately, which is exciting, and makes me think more of that would always be welcome, but then it makes me think of how and what I could be doing to make more sales happen without too much effort or investment on my part.  My new album, which I released just over one month ago, has sold quite a few copies lately!  Surprisingly, there are some out there who have purchased the physical CD directly from Amazon, and unsurprisingly, there have been a lot of single-song MP3 purchases from Google Play, Spotify, Bandcamp, and of course, iTunes. All great, and more would be even better. Makes me wonder what, out of the various free things I've done in my free time to make people aware my music exists, has been most effective in terms of conversions. I use some analytics and get some data from online music stores, but it's not much to go on.

I sometimes wonder how to rise above the sales barely covering my costs, release after release, every two years.  I don’t just consider the nominal distribution costs, but also the upgrading of recording equipment and instruments from time to time.  Nowhere close to making enough money to cover the new Martin acoustic guitar….yet.  You never know if some happy accident might catapult me into profitability….or better yet, from nobility to notability.

I cite the following definitions from some online dictionary:

• noble:  music has outstanding or excellent qualities and lofty ideals or character, coming from personal qualities that people admire (such as honesty, generosity, courage, etc.)
• notable:  music is unusual and worth noticing, remarkable, distinguished, prominent

When it comes to noble, I read it and say to myself “check” I’ve got those covered.  When it comes to notable, however, I’m not sure I can honestly say it’s distinguished or prominent yet.

The reason I wonder about notability is because if you want to get reviewed by or listed in certain well-known music-related online publications and databases such as AllMusic or Wikipedia, they require you prove you’ve already been written about in other publications or websites.  Reference documents that indicate a level of prominence to gain more or higher prominence.

You hear about people faking their number of social likes and friends and shares and tweets and adds and follows and that sort of thing.  They do it because it works.  The basic concept at play here is that perceived prominence and popularity whether deserved or real or otherwise, breeds actual increased, real popularity, thereby increasing real prominence.  I won’t lower myself to those types of tactics, but I’m told they are effective. What it boils down to is spending my hard-earned free time bugging people to write about me and my music, so as to show documented importance and significance.

Here’s a small subset of summarized information I got from Wikipedia that provides guidelines of what you need in order to be considered for a listing in a few of their appropriate categories:

Indicate...important because...(document it is true)significant because...(document it is true)

Musician
1.  multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician himself (newspaper articles, books, magazine articles)
2.  single or album on a music chart
3.  certification of gold or higher on a chart
4.  national concert tour
5.  major record label
6.  notable members of ensemble
7.  prominent representative of a notable style or scene
8.  been nominated for (or won) a major award
9.  won or placed in a major competition
10. TV or film placement of song
11. national radio rotation or music TV station
12. been featured subject of radio or TV

Composer/Lyricist
1.  writing credit on notable composition
2.  writing of musical theatre notable run
3.  wrote work used as basis for another notable work
4.  won or placed in notable non-newcomer competition
5.  listed as major influence on notable person
6.  appears in reference books about genre

SongsShortcuts: WP:NSONG, WP:NSONGS
Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

• Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
• Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
• Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. 

Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position. 

• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
• Note2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed on secondary content. Wikiversity and WikiBooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues.

Resources
Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable. When looking in depth, a Google book search may turn something up. For material that has captured the attention of academics, a search on Google scholar may work. 

An experienced editor also provides a guide on ensuring that articles meet criteria.

Wow, so after reading all that carefully, and summarizing it in my own notes I’ve now shared with you, the world, it is overwhelming.  It’s one thing to find a list of online publications and blogs who write about independent music acts like me.  That’s hassle enough.  Then you need to email them a cover letter and link to free streaming samples of your music, or even mail packages of information and CDs to them.  Now you’re talking about a lot more of your free time, plus some some potential cost for materials.  After you find their submission policies on their websites, which is often difficult, they almost always say something to the effect of 1) we get tons of these every day, and can never review them all, or maybe we have someone briefly read/listen to your submission, but we can not possibly write about them all, and 2) we don’t ever return your stuff.  

So, no guarantees, and you start to wonder, “who has time for this stuff?...especially for most of us with day jobs and personal lives?”  The answer is probably along the lines of don’t give up trying, hard work eventually pays off, lots of irons in the fire increases your chances, etc.  It would be cool if you had money to pay someone else to do all this for you, wouldn’t it?  I guess when you get signed to a record contract with a major label you get an advance to pay people to do this stuff for you.  The Behind The Music or Where Are They Now types of shows on TV always seem to cover famous artists who sold millions and not only never became wealthy, but in fact ended up in more debt than before they were signed to the record deals.  On the other hand, there are artists who become so famous from major-label marketing budgets, when they get out of their contracts, they can still sell a ton of records on their own.  This has happened more and more frequently in recent years I would imagine due to the ways in which the internet has changed the music business.

I’ll stick to what I like - writing and recording songs in my basement, and selling enough online to cover most of my costs - except the Martin guitar.  I will keep hoping for a lightning strike of dumb luck or some phenomenon described with the word “viral” to accidentally occur.  This is like hoping you’ll win the lottery.  Not very good odds, but fun to think about it once in a while.  It would be nice to be more notable.