music

You are currently browsing the archive for the music category.

I read the 33 1/3 Series book on Neutral Milk Hotel’s In the Aeroplane Over the Sea on an airplane over the - uh - dirt (and some sea) recently.

To say that the record is significant is an understatement. No more needs to be written on it; it needs to be listened to. (I will add, very briefly, that when in the process of unsuccessfully attempting to license the record for release in the UK, I got to know Jeff Mangum a bit - many phone calls, a few in-persons - and he was one of the more self-effacing, genuinely kind geniuses I’ve had the pleasure of meeting).

In any case, while nothing more really does need to be written on the record, the above-referenced book is good. The author, Kim Cooper, wisely doesn’t attempt too much exegesis on the record. Instead, he focuses on the circumstances leading up to the record, the furor around the release/tour, and a bit (just a bit, thankfully) on Jeff’s “disappearance” post-tour.

If you’re a fan, you’ll like it (or hate it).

What hit me the hardest was the quote from band-member, Julian Koster, below.

Tags: , ,

A while back I made a promise to try and engage in more random acts of creativity; things get very dark around the Ponderosa when I don’t.

I’ve done OK with this, but I’m certainly not where I want to be in terms of frequency.

I was thinking about why my output hasn’t been what I’ve wanted, and some of it comes down to my damnable Virgo personality of needing to refine things rather than letting them be/go. While I’ve come to be largely OK with this, it does stand in contrast to much of what I preach with respect to getting stuff out there and refining.

What happens is, I’ll start with a sketch of a song or of a…er…sketch, and rather than keep it as just a sketch — a moment — I add layers.

The question is, do these layers really add anything? Isn’t the essence where it’s at?

I think the answer is that, yes, the essence is there…or it isn’t. Refining is not necessarily a bad thing, and, often, is absolutely necessary. But sometimes it’s more necessary to just create, and let the essence be what it is or isn’t.

I think if there’s something there, you’ll come back with a different eye, a different approach, and you’ll refine. If there isn’t something there, coming back to it a billion times won’t get you any closer to the truth.

To that end, I was taking a break from the jaberwocky a bit ago, and came upstairs from my office; the kids were running around in circles (not kidding), and I picked up my guitar. I’m fascinated and obsessed with staccato rhythms on guitar that imply melody, and am always on the hunt for these. A drop D and a capo later, I had the feel of something. I plopped my iPhone with the voice memo app running on my knee and banged it out.

My intention was to use this iPhone recording to just remember the idea of the tune. But then I started thinking of all the layers I would add to it, and it became less about doing something fun and cathartic and more about planning a time when the house would be quiet, the phone wouldn’t be ringing, etc.

Pretty soon I was tired just thinking about it.

So, screw it. Here’s the iPhone recording. Yes, that’s Henry running around in circles talking about monsters. Yes, that’s me breathing. Yes it goes out of time at one point.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Mouse and Pin Cushion

Once again, I’m honored to use, with her kind permission, one of Kristin Hersh’s amazing photos as the title inspiration.

If you want to hear real songs, head on over to Kristin’s Site; lots of amazing things going on over there.

I hope those of you who read Ye Olde Bloggee don’t mind these little moments of internal contemplation and their collateral manifestations.

Tags: , , , ,

It’s nice when songs make you think of someone very acutely. Even nicer when said songs make you think of your wife.

This one comes on, and all I feel is Marci:

Tags: ,

OK, as little as I want to do this, and as much as the focus of my work (and this blog) has sort of shifted to talking about business generally (as opposed to the so-called “music business”), I want to write this out (…again… I have written a couple books on it), so that I can just direct people to it when I’m asked.

I get asked this question (or a variant on it) more than just about any other music business related topic. I get it; it ain’t easy to understand, but it’s not that hard, and, understand it you must.

Also, as much as I believe that the “music business” is dead, and it’s all just business; the one thing that is unique to the music business is how (c) is handled. That’s not to say that you have different IP interests in music than in other businesses; you don’t. Rather, there are just various “terms of art” that are unique to the music business.

So…here we go: an attempt to explain the rules and licenses around songs being used in films, tv, and ads. Let me know if you have any questions; I’ll try to answer them in the comments, and maybe this can be an evolving document that we can reference.

Any time a song is used in a film, tv show, ad there are two licenses required:

    1. A synchronization (synch) license: This is a license the producer of the above must obtain from the writer of the song (if the writer has assigned her (c) to a publisher, the producer must go through the publisher).

    This gives the producer of the above the right to synchronize the (c)’d song (not the recording of the song, but the underlying composition - lyrics and melody) with the moving images in the tv show, ad, movie.

    2. A master usage license: the producer of the above must negotiate a license with the person who holds the (c) to the recording of the above underlying composition (i.e. the version of the song found on the CD).

    Typically, the master usage holder is the label. If there is no label (i.e., it’s self-released by the artist), then the producer of the above negotiates directly with the artist who self-released.

    Thus, in the case of an artist who has not assigned their publishing rights to anyone and self-releases their own record, the producer of the above negotiates “both sides” (i.e. the synch and the master usage) with the artist herself.

    If the artist has done a publishing deal and a record deal, the producer negotiates with the publisher for the synch rights and the label for the master usage rights.

    Unlike with mechanicals (i.e. the payment labels make to songwriters for the rights to mechanically reproduce a (c)’d song on the album the label releases), there is no compulsory license for either synch or master licenses. That means that the producer must negotiate both of these licenses, and either the master holder or the publisher can deny the request.

    In reality, the producer will approach one of the parties (the label or publisher - typically, publisher first - see below for why), and see if they can get the writer interested in the synch (most writers, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used for whatever piece of shit is being sold on any given day). They (the producer) gives them an offer, and then tries to shift the burden of the master clearance to the writer/publisher. At that point, they (both producer (or his music supervisor lackey) and the publisher/writer) push on the labels to clear the master side (most labels, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used for whatever piece of shit is being sold on any given day), and a deal is struck.

    The fee is divided (typically evenly) between the publisher for the synch rights and the master holder for the, er, master rights.

    Sometimes, the publisher will want to do the deal, but the label doesn’t. In this case - as you saw, for instance in the Sean Penn exploitation vehicle I am Sam - the publisher for the Beatles cleared the synch rights for the song, but the label wouldn’t make a deal for the master usage; therefore, the producers used different masters (i.e. they had artists cover the songs).

    It doesn’t work the other way; if the publisher won’t grant the synch license, the party is over - this is why producers go to publishers first; they’re the dispositive party.

    Importantly, in the US, when the Ad or TV show or Movie is publicly performed on TV (i.e. it’s broadcast), a performance royalty is generated for the writer and publisher of the song (often the same person). The performer (i.e. the person on the master) sees none of this performance royalty. Do note, that no performance royalty is generated from public performance in movie theaters, as they are (wink, wink, nod, nod) exempt from paying public performance royalties..

    Hope this helps. Leave me questions in the comments.

    xo

Tags: ,

I just love this record. I find myself staring at the cover while I listen; the visuals aligning with the sonics.

So many of the Verve and Blue Note covers from that era align so perfectly with the music.

My friend, the brilliant musician/composer, Mark Isham, talks frequently about how Miles Davis (particularly with Bitches Brew) unified his visuals and music. He’s right, of course.

I’m curious what cover art you feel resonates with the music. Leave me some thoughts in the comments if you get a moment.

Tags: , ,

« Older entries

Bad Behavior has blocked 513 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Close
E-mail It