And The Nominees Are...

I'm always curious about the songs that end up in movies.  Are they already in existence and just end up being a perfect fit for the movie, or are they written specifically for the movie?

My guess would be either or.  I'm sure a director might be drawn to a song before a movie is completed in some cases...and in others I would imagine there are some politics involved, where they have to use a particular artist, band or songwriter for their movie.

Let's understand first that "Best Song" is different from "Best Score".  The score is the music that is underneath the dialogue or helps to drive the emotion or drama of a movie in various scenes.

The very first Oscar for best song was awarded in 1934.  "The Continental" written by Con Conrad with lyrics by Herb Magidson was sung by Ginger Rogers in the movie "The Gay Divorcee".  Wow, that movie title would have a whole new context these days :-)

Here is a video clip from the movie:

Of course, the movie was a musical.  But these days, musicals aren't as common in film form unless they are filmed versions of Broadway musicals or Disney films.

The best song nominations are very often at the end of a movie, during the credits.  Which makes me wonder if a lot of people actually stay long enough to hear them.  Maybe the intention is to keep people in their seats during the credits, or to prevent you from turning the movie off, in the case of a DVD or streamed movie.   I wonder if that actually works?  There are certainly people who like to watch the credits, or who take that time to soak the movie in, but a lot of people don't bother.

This years nominations are all quite different.  "Let It Go", from the Disney movie "Frozen" is your typical Disney pop ballad, sung by Idina Menzel and written by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and her husband Robert Lopez, who have written songs for Disney before in the movies Finding Nemo and Winnie The Pooh.  In this case, of course, Disney commissioned the song specifically for the movie.  I was curious about it because I wrote a song with that very name about 20 years ago.  I guess without the context of the movie, it's hard to judge the song on its own merit, but it is not a stand out for me.  I can see, however, that it might appeal to the little girls that the movie is mainly targeting.

Another nominated song is "Ordinary Love" by U2 from the movie "Long Walk To Freedom".  This is Nelson Mandela's story, and although I didn't see the movie, I do know his story well.  When I listened to the song, I more or less expected to relate to the lyrics because of that, but I have to say I was confused by them to some degree.  I do like some of the imagery in lines like "The sea throws rock together, but time leaves us polished stones", but the chorus lines "we can't fall any further if we can't feel ordinary love" probably has some sort of mystical meaning to the writers, that go right over my head.   I just don't think the song is a stand out.

The movie "Juno" which came out in 2007 had a couple of songs in it by the Moldy Peaches.  I know there are Moldy Peaches fans out there because a couple of my guitar students requested one of the songs that was used in the movie "Anyone Else But You".  The group described themselves at the time as "anti-folk", "lo-fi" and "garage-rock".  For me, they were "sophomoric", but that's just a matter of personal preference, I guess :-).  This year, "The Moon Song" from the movie "Her", strikes me exactly the same way.  'Nuff said.

My favourite song on this year's list of nominees, is the song "Happy" from "Despicable Me 2" by Pharrell Williams.  Reflecting its title, of course, it's a very upbeat and catchy song.  It is, by no means, lyrically deep.  But then again, I was drawn to Daft Punk's "Get Lucky", so I don't have to hear deep lyrics to find happiness.

Online there is huge support for "Let It Go" and although that isn't necessarily a reflection of what the Academy is going to choose, I think it's a strong possibility that it will win.   There are, honestly, some years that I find the field of nominees lacking.  But then again, I suppose in some years there isn't a whole lot to choose from.

I'll be watching...

IJ

Do You Or Don't You?

Do you need to read music to write songs?  This question has come up time and time again over the years I have been writing songs and articles about songs, and it has always been a contentious issue.  This morning I read yet another article, a set of arguments as to why you must read music if you are to be taken seriously as a songwriter.

It came from someone who does read music, who has done so since he was very young, and who also teaches it.  One of his arguments was based on a quote by another instructor: “Words were invented so you don’t have to carry a brick around with you in order to tell someone about a brick.” He said reading (and therefore writing) music means you don't have to carry a guitar when you can simply carry a tune.

It's this whole idea of must that gets me.  I'm not sure about you, but the only descriptions I've ever heard of someone pitching a song to a publisher or record label was to either play it for them live ("carrying the guitar") or playing it for them on a recording.  I've never heard of anyone passing a stack of sheet music across a desk and saying "Here, read this!  Isn't it brilliant?" Maybe in the 1940's. Whenever someone tells you you MUST do anything, they are either full of themselves or trying to promote something they're selling.  I won't even use that old argument "well, the Beatles didn't read music!" because it isn't even about who can or who can't.

There are different scenarios you may experience as a songwriter, of course.  If you work with musicians who need to have music notation in front of them in order to play your song, there are ways to do that, including learning it yourself.  No argument there.  Is it beneficial to learn to read? Some, like the author of the blog I read this morning, would say yes. Others would say that it makes them think too much when they're writing, and thinking can often stifle creativity.  Theory, and notation to some degree, is the "math" behind the music.

I am not against reading music, and I am myself able to do so.  What I'm against is absolutes.  To write a song, you do not have to write and read music.

IJ

Vanity vs Logic OR I've Come To My Senses

Let's face it.  A huge number of us, myself included, are not going to make it to the big time with our songs.  I'm not trying to be negative here, just realistic.  I have made some money over the years from my work in television, and when I first started recording my songs in the early 90's, I sold a few CDs when I was out there performing all the time.  I even made a little money from mp3.com when I first signed up for it because a few of my songs were chosen for their playlists.  Do you remember mp3.com?  Then you've been on the web as long as I have!  It was actually kind of exciting back then.

I thought the web was going to be a great way to get that exposure that I couldn't physically do myself;  it would get my music out there to the big, wide world that I didn't have the time or money to travel around myself.  And slowly, everyone else had the same thought.  A few clever people took notice of this and they created websites where music could be uploaded and distributed to anyone who was interested.  What could be better?

The other day I read a statistic that more or less floored me.

It was on Hypebot, whose Twitter account I follow.  It stated simply that 4 million songs on Spotify (20%) have never been played.  Never.  And that's just Spotify.  I checked the stats for my own albums, which I had uploaded and paid distribution fees to Reverbnation for.  Half of the songs I had up there had never been played.  The rest had maybe a couple of plays, the odd one more than that. One song had a fair amount of plays, perhaps because of its name "Shades of Grey".  Yep, that was a happy accident because I didn't name it that way as a ploy!  I wrote the song well before the book became popular.

I wonder how many songs on Spotify have had one play, or maybe half a dozen?  That makes the picture a lot more gloomy when you think of it.  How much are we paying to have our music distributed to iTunes and the rest of them, only to have no plays, or maybe one or two?  We get maybe a third of a cent per play, if that, and the distributors get a hundred thousand times that because we paid them.

Now don't get me wrong.  I understand that most of the work is up to us.  We have to be promoting ourselves and our songs, we have to be out there performing or trying to draw some attention to our music, in order to get those plays.  I haven't been performing for a number of years now.  But I allowed vanity to get in the way of logic.  I paid money to have my CDs distributed online, and even when there were hardly any streams or sales, I kept them up there for another year, and then another.  I wonder how much money these distribution services like Reverbnation make from vain people like me?

I have finally smartened up, and recently began the long process of taking them down and removing my Reverbnation account.  I say "long process" because it isn't easy.  There's no such thing as a simple "delete" button that gets rid of everything in one fell swoop.  No, you have to remove your music, you have to make sure that any money coming to you gets paid out (which is very little, but I withdrew it anyway), and then you have to try and remove your profile.  Even weeks after I removed my music, they tell me that I can't remove my profile because I still have my CDs for sale, which I don't.  I'm emailing them to try to straighten it out, but I anticipate more mess trying to take down my profile in the coming days.

I am not trying to discourage you from trying to sell your music.  By all means, do it.  But I think we all have to have a much more realistic picture of what is possible and who is trying to take advantage of our naivete.  David Byrne wrote an excellent column in The Guardian recently, expounding upon his opinion of streaming music.  He says "Not surprisingly, streaming looks to be the future of music consumption – it already is the future in Scandinavia, where Spotify (the largest streaming service) started, and in Spain."  and then goes on "For many music listeners, the choice is obvious – why would you ever buy a CD or pay for a download when you can stream your favourite albums and artists either for free, or for a nominal monthly charge?"

This affects you, the songwriter.  Nobody wants to pay you for your work any more if they can get it for free.  And if they do pay anything at all, it goes to the services who host your music, and very little goes to you.  If you have a record label, then the label will take most of that.

There are bands and artists that are willing to pay to be discovered on these services, and maybe you are too.  But don't let it go on as long as I did.  I've finally come to my senses.

IJ

UPDATE:  within two days I had a response from Reverbnation and I was able to completely remove my account.