Cyrokk
Farce of Nature
mshilarious said:Myth: drum solos are cool
That's because most drummers don't make it interesting enough.
Check out Tool's Merkaba for an exception to the rule.
That's because most drummers don't make it interesting enough.
Check out Tool's Merkaba for an exception to the rule.
mshilarious
Banned
Cyrokk said:
No, sorry, no exceptions, not even Bruford's "The Drum Also Waltzes"
The only thing that sucks more is bass solos.
Guitar solos are a close third . . .
Worst of all is singers talking between tracks in concert
Oh yes, and keyboard players, in general
Edit: Yes, even Fonzie's bongo solo
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Well, being a member and having a song registered are two different benchmarks with different qualifications, which is why I asked them separately. Here's what all this was leading up to...EDAN said:
As I understand it, an ASCAP registration for a song - and therefore the ability to collect mechanical or performaance royalties - requires that the song has been "commercially published and recorded" (or words to that effect.) Now I personally find the word "commercially" to be quite ambiguous and rather meaningless. But the key word for me as regards our debate is the "published". Unless one is just publishing lyrics alone, "publishing" includes some transcription of the melody and/or chord progressions.
One can let the publisher do it for them, I suppose. But an indie artist like the kind you'll find on this board would be insane, IMHO, not to register as an independant publisher themselves and keep for themselves the extra money that the publisher would strip off the top, as well as retain control over the rights and ownership of the song instead of giving them up to publisher hell as well.
So, doing the math through all that crap means that if one is to release their own songs and collect royalties on them, they are probably publishing the songs themselves, which requires the very basic skill of being able to actually transcribe a little more than just the lyrics to paper.
Which means actually knowing what notes and chords you are playing.
Not that that's rocket science. Unless you're name is Phoebe Buffet.
G.
mshilarious
Banned
SouthSIDE Glen said:Not that that's rocket science. Unless you're name is Phoebe Buffet.
Ah, but Phoebe only wrote new lyrics to an existing tune, "Sleepy Girl"
E
EDAN
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:Well, being a member and having a song registered are two different benchmarks with different qualifications, which is why I asked them separately. Here's what all this was leading up to...
As I understand it, an ASCAP registration for a song - and therefore the ability to collect mechanical or performaance royalties - requires that the song has been "commercially published and recorded" (or words to that effect.) Now I personally find the word "commercially" to be quite ambiguous and rather meaningless. But the key word for me as regards our debate is the "published". Unless one is just publishing lyrics alone, "publishing" includes some transcription of the melody and/or chord progressions.
One can let the publisher do it for them, I suppose. But an indie artist like the kind you'll find on this board would be insane, IMHO, not to register as an independant publisher themselves and keep for themselves the extra money that the publisher would strip off the top, as well as retain control over the rights and ownership of the song instead of giving them up to publisher hell as well.
So, doing the math through all that crap means that if one is to release their own songs and collect royalties on them, they are probably publishing the songs themselves, which requires the very basic skill of being able to actually transcribe a little more than just the lyrics to paper.
Which means actually knowing what notes and chords you are playing.
Not that that's rocket science. Unless you're name is Phoebe Buffet.
G.
I must be going zoinkos as I didn't even notice the question about registering songs. You don't need anything transcribed to register your songs with any PRO. All you need in the title, writer/writers names and either the file number of the song or the pending number from the Library of Congress. My brother reminded me that a writer need only have songs that are "likely" to be performed in public in order to join both ASCAP and BMI. That could mean played on the radio or a live performance by the writer.
Cyrokk
Farce of Nature
We need a moderator to move this thread to the songwriting forum.
Farview
Well-known member
So, we aren't paying attention again.EDAN said:
mshilarious
Banned
Sillyhat said:
Who is we, you and your tapeworm
Farview
Well-known member
It was the royal we. I meant EDAN. If you look back, he has spent half his time fighting points that weren't posed.
mshilarious
Banned
Sillyhat said:
Yeah I know. I just love that line. I learned it from Louis Rukeyser, formerly of "Wall $treet Week". He used it on an investment banker guest who kept saying "we think . . . " etc. The guy just about dropped a pantload after Louie inferred that he had intestinal parasites
E
EDAN
New member
Sillyhat said:
There you go again, Sally, I mean silly. I didn't even reply never mind fight any points. He asked me two questions, I only answered the first. The half od my time fighting points was actually a couple of minutes on one post I misread of yours, a post as you very well know I edited when I dicovered my mistake before you even brought it up. Now, did you learn anything new today? You'd have to pay good money to get this kind of pro advice anywhere else, son.
E
EDAN
New member
eraos said:
Scales? I don't need no steenk'n scales!
ez_willis
.
EDAN said:
That's not true!
NL5
Unpossible!
Myth #887 - If I keep checking this thread, it will eventually get back on topic.
mshilarious
Banned
NL5 said:
Myth #1,015: Stapp holds up his hands while he sings because he is a goofy drunken idiot. In reality, he is balancing the forces of good and evil in eternity.
Dogman
Unkle Ticklefingers
Willis changed his avatar back to Buckwheat. That is the coolest thing so far..... 
Oh, and I just had a party at my house, and drank a lot of beer.
Oh, and I just had a party at my house, and drank a lot of beer.
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
Myth #3.141592653589793238...
This thread is rational.
Myth #42
Every piece must contain at least one tonic chord in the root position per verse/chorus.
Myth #666
Inconsistent rhythm can be solved by layering enough strings.
This thread is rational.
Myth #42
Every piece must contain at least one tonic chord in the root position per verse/chorus.
Myth #666
Inconsistent rhythm can be solved by layering enough strings.
X
XLR
______
Technological Advancement and the Performance Quality Trap
OK, just a different slant on an already mentioned idea.
Overall, the biggest myth I'm aware of is the general belief of 17th Century philosophers that technological advancement would bring us to a point where, being freed from physical drudgery, people would steep themselves in art, literature, scientific exploration, personal development... But then came TV... So much for philosophy.
How does this apply to recording? ...Well, many are led to believe that technological advancement makes for good recordings. But it just makes recording generally easier to do. What makes good recordings happen is a timeless thing... a hot performance brought about by lots of rehearsal and excitement. The fact that recording's easier now is a trap I think. Lures one into thinking that if you just record endless takes you'll be able to create a great performance by reshaping and stitching parts together like a Frankenstein creation.
Tim
OK, just a different slant on an already mentioned idea.
Overall, the biggest myth I'm aware of is the general belief of 17th Century philosophers that technological advancement would bring us to a point where, being freed from physical drudgery, people would steep themselves in art, literature, scientific exploration, personal development... But then came TV... So much for philosophy.
How does this apply to recording? ...Well, many are led to believe that technological advancement makes for good recordings. But it just makes recording generally easier to do. What makes good recordings happen is a timeless thing... a hot performance brought about by lots of rehearsal and excitement. The fact that recording's easier now is a trap I think. Lures one into thinking that if you just record endless takes you'll be able to create a great performance by reshaping and stitching parts together like a Frankenstein creation.
Tim
Last edited:
tourettes5139
New member
mshilarious said:Myth #1,015: Stapp holds up his hands while he sings because he is a goofy drunken idiot. In reality, he is balancing the forces of good and evil in eternity.
Ah, HELL NO! I hope that this "eternal struggle" doesn't all come down to Scott Stapp.
mshilarious
Banned
Timothy Lawler said:
You're talking about my piezo RUMBLE! entry again, aren't you
Hey, what is recording endless takes, if not rehearsal