Longing for the day ...

She Don't Want Your Love

I have a friend about whom I care for very deeply. This friend held my life together after the end of my marriage. She turned up on my door every morning and listened to my drivel. She took me for long walks in the forest to make sure I got exercise and fresh air while I was at my lowest ebb. She talked to me about my dreams and my future and gave me a renewed focus on the things that are important to me.

But for all her wonderful qualities, my friend's emotional life is a mess. She is beset by her own insecurities and cannot seem to form a strong romantic bond with anyone. She and I have been very close emotionally and discuss our deepest, darkest fears and secrets - but there's always a barrier that she puts up whenever her feelings come into the conversation. As a result, I've seen her through one stupid, shallow, mindless event after another.

I started writing this song for her in April 2009, just before my own divorce was finalised and when I had the strength to see what was going on in her life. The first couple of verses and the chorus came pretty easily in my sleep but I was never happy with third verse. I finished it yesterday morning and debuted it at SNQ Presents last night. It's still pretty raw and I rarely complete it in rehearsal - but here it is. I do it as a real Country Ballad thing on G - I'll post a recording of it as soon as I get one ready.

She don’t want your love

It’s morning. She’s yawning. The night was your best friend
Come noon, way too soon, you’ll go your separate ways.
Hold tight in the early light. She’s there when you need her
But come tomorrow she’s just a memory

Daddy’s girl grew up too fast.
Never learned that love was meant to last.
She’ll just keep searching for a while.
She’s got no cause. She won’t be yours,
But she got something about her.
She’ll hold your body tight but she don’t want your love.

She’s lovely, above me. Those eyes could light the sky.
But her star has a scar that don’t see light of day.
It’s real what I feel when she blesses my lonely soul.
But come tomorrow she’s gone like a dream

Daddy’s girl grew up too fast. Never wants to talk about her past.
She’ll just keep hurting for a while.
She’s got no cause. She won’t be yours but Lord there’s something about her.
She’ll hold your heart so tight but she don’t want your love.

It’s evening. She’s leaving. Gonna dance the night away.
But her eyes reveal the lies she no longer has to say.
She’s clutching, barely touching. I feel how she’s aching.
I know tomorrow she’ll be numb and alone.

Daddy’s girl grew up too fast. Never learned that love was meant to last
She’ll just keep dreaming for a while.
She’s got no cause. She won’t be yours but living ain’t right without her.
She holds your soul so tight but she don’t want your love.

*****************************************

Please note: This song is APRA registered: Work ID GW40048657; ISWC TBA. You can copy, reproduce and distribute any part of these lyrics and chords for any non-commercial purpose as long as you acknowledge its source. I'm interested in your feedback, comments, suggestions. If you make something good out of it, let me know and I'll consider adding it to this site.

If you perform it or broadcast it for any purpose, please let APRA know.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License

The decline in professional musicians

In recent times I have come across several mentions of the complaint that the number of professional musicians in declining. This is usually followed by some declaration or lament that without professional status, less or worse music will be made. This is laughable ...

Personally, I make music because I enjoy writing, recording and performing music. I have been able to make some money from my performances and sell some of my recordings, but this has never been a full-time thing for me. In fact, one of the most talented musicians I know, Ian Focks, once told me that he had no desire to be a full-time musician.

Shocked, I asked him to explain this. He said that he loved playing music and did so whenever he got the chance to play with people he liked. But if he had to play music professionally, then he would have to play music he hated with people he hated ... and he wasn't interested in doing that. Nice approach ...

So, if there are less professional musicians (and I don't doubt it for a second), why?

The ABS employment stats show that in 1996 there were 7105 people who listed "musician" or similar as their main source of employment the week before the Census. By 2006 there were only 2757. That is a dramatic decline and pre-dates any of the usual explanations.

This means that there are an increased number of "hobbyists" that are propping up the industry. Actually, the hobbyists form the vast majority of musicians and are the foundations of the industry.

The reasons are this are linked to the decreased profitability of recordings but it's not as simple saying "illegal file-sharing is to blame". It's also a function of movement in the live revenue market, in which a disaster in over-pricing and poor risk management is only just being revealed. Will this be the music industry's sub-prime crisis?

Far more damaging is the trend for bands to look for revenue from licensed placement of their recordings in advertisements, TV and movies. This takes away work from a heap of musicians who used to specialise in writing and recording jingles and soundtracks - rather than perform in touring bands. My good mate Phil Graham made his living this way until the late 1990s but technology had long since begun replacing these musicians. I stopped playing session drums and started playing guitar in cafes when drum machines became cost-effective replacements for drummers ...

Music is returning to being a cottage industry. Get your heads around it ...

Responding to a reviewer

Found this review of my E-book. So happy that someone has engaged with the ideas!!

Actually, I'm honoured that although Jillian disagrees with the central premise of Part 1, she still wants to read Parts 2 and 3. Working on that for you all ...

For the most part, Jillian seems to agree with the early parts of the book, but her summary indicates that she disagrees with bits and struggles to come to terms with the more fundamental shifts in thinking it outlines. I find this puzzling, because in disagreeing she's restated my point ...

Jillian agrees up to the point where she says:

Music is ephemeral – in the physical sense. But certainly not emotionally.

We do disagree here. Unless your emotions are fixed, music is emotionally ephemeral as well. Any particular piece of music is irrelevant as soon as your mood changes. I, for one, don't feel like listening to The Four Seasons while I'm pounding the training track, and I don't view Megadeath as suitable for a romantic weekend away. Some people may differ in their taste but few would disagree with the substance of that statement. When I'm in a particular mood, there are probably 1000 songs that will suit or enhance that mood, so music is pretty substitutable as well. Sometimes, I don't feel like listening to music at all - the only emotional response I have to hearing some is irritation.

Music IS as ephemeral as a person's mood. Literally.

Next Jillian argues:

I mean, this whole time, record labels have existed to sell me a piece of transitory technology and no one gives a crap about the music? Give me a break.

Of course, not. This is exactly the point: people bought (and sold!) the technology BECAUSE they love the music. But they didn't buy the music, only the technology. The music is a completely different thing that, coincidentally, happened to be the most valuable thing stored on the technology. LPs of spoken words have been sold in millions ...

To put it another way, the technologies used to reproduce music are not "music technologies", they are technologies that are more appealing when music is added to them. An empty room is a technology that is more appealing when music is added - but if you walk in an listen, you're still in an empty room and when the music stops, you're still in an empty room ...

CDs, tapes, pieces of paper, etc would still have been sold without music on them, just as some phonographs were sold to businesses. Music still exists independent of the technologies - the two are not bound together. But the music was added precisely because doing so increased sales of the technology. The technology was not created specifically for music - and, in the case of the iPhone vs the iPod, the technology with more flexible application will triumph over the more limited technology.

Jillian continues:

... how is it exactly that the owners of technology are the ones who benefits more from copyright law than the owners of intellectual property? Because they’re utilized more and have a wider notoriety than most copyright owners will ever dream of being? The last time I checked, copyright law exists to promote artistic creativity, not technology.

Well, actually, that's not what's happening. Recent studies have shown that, although we are being told that this is the aim of IP laws (and I don't doubt for a second that the makers of IP laws hold true to that aim) the effect is the exact opposite. Excessive IP 'protection' stifles innovation and creativity across a society. (I'm trying to locate some of these studies. There was a big one last year - anyone?)

The technology vendors benefit most from copyright law because they control the item that is sold, and they are expected to pay a royalty to the IP creators for inclusion of the content. Without the technology, the IP is worthless (in fact, without the technology, the IP does not legally exist).

The harsh reality of IP law has been that IP cannot be 'protected' until it is technologically fixed. When it is, the ownership of the IP rests with its author (unless it is sold or assigned to someone else) but the ownership of the technology rests with the publisher, not the author. The publisher is required to negotiate a royalty with the author, but the record labels are notorious for negotiating to keep most of those royalties, too. The authors of hit songs have made bugger-all from their sales, while the publishers make a motza!

Further, the industry structure that has resulted from this legal framework has been such that only the creations of a very few have ever been seriously considered for commercial exploitation. Other works may be been suitable or even superior but were never considered because the decision-makers never knew (nor probably cared) that they existed. That's not an evil scheme of record-label conspiracy, it's just the industrial reality. But it does not "promote artistic creativity" in a society, it just enhances the prospects of those creators who ARE able to commercialise their works.

Anyone who believes that IP laws have protected the interests of IP authors when the recordings are sold is deluded ...

Jillian then argues:

But music is the cause, not the effect. The iPod was created and sold because of music and to enhance our musical experiences by allow us to take it with us anywhere we want. We may be more enticed to buy a smart phone over a regular phone because it plays music, but music is not the selling point. I’ve tried to wrap my head around this guy’s thinking, but I just can’t do it.

Yes! Exactly! To experience the music is the reason you buy the technology - but you buy the technology, not the music. The music is optional/ephemeral/independent of the technology and is added to it separately to make the technology more appealing.

The record industry believed they were selling music, when in fact they were creating musical recordings that were used to sell reproduction technologies. Now that the recordings can be obtained by other means, or at least, alternative, 'Independent' recordings (which buyers are quite happy to substitute for the labels' offerings) can be obtained by other means, the market for their technologies of reproduction is declining. This is exactly where they went wrong.

Hope this clarifies things. I'm gonna get on with Part 2 ...

Review of Music Xray's S2O service

I read about Music Xray's S2O service in a LinkedIn forum and thought "what a great idea" so I signed up and entered The Genre Benders' album into the system (free). The "matches" the S2O system produces are based on mathematical analysis of the songs, not human ears, so I was curious as to the results. Thought I'd share my experiences of it.

Signup and upload worked seamlessly. Great interface, simple and easy to use.

I uploaded tracks on Thursday and got my first "match" messages on Sunday, August 1 (Australian time). Not every song got matched, but 6 of 11 got between one and six "probable" matches. Here's where I'm a bit discouraged.

The album's first track, "Long for the day", is an up-tempo acoustic-jazz tribute to Independent musicians and their lot in life. It got six matches, including "Internet Radio Airplay - Reggae - 100 Spins for $35" and "Love Songs wanted for compilation project ". It is neither reggae nor a love song.

Interestingly, the album's second track "Dancing with the Stones" IS reggae-based. It also got 6 matches, including "Internet Radio Airplay - Pop - 100 Spins for $35" but did not get matched to the reggae opportunity mentioned above.

The album's Lullabye, entitled "Lullabye", got three matches, including "Seeking New Music Talent Specializing in Darker Music Genres".

And here's the kicker: my Hillbilly lovesong, "Heart's with you", got three matches, including "Seeking songs for Lucas Hoge" but when, within hours of receiving the email, I clicked on this opportunity, the page said it had expired 2 days earlier and would provide no way for me to contact the provider.

Now, I have, for some time, had a serious aversion to these "opportunity" websites, including Sonicbids and so on. I'm not challenging the authenticity of those involved in this approach the 21st century music business but, to my way of thinking, paying for a product or service is BUSINESS, but paying for an "opportunity" is gambling. I won't gamble with my music.

Elsewhere in the LinkedIn forums, Mike started an interesting discussion called "You Can’t Spell Music Business without 'Business'".

I'll post his response to my experience of Music Xray's S2O service and also want to hear about other experiences people have had with it or similar. I'm hoping that the algorithms S2O uses are being refined and will actually contribute something to the music business in future.

Please persuade me that my aversion is unjustified ...