90 Seconds To Impact

When I address groups of songwriters or independent artists, different issues concern them. I often find myself teaching or clarifying things that may seem contradictory, when in fact they are simply the flip side of the same coin.

There’s a big difference between being a singer-songwriter and being just a songwriter. I’ve done both at different times in my career. A singer-songwriter has the latitude to set the bar for his/her own career. He/she can write intelligent, obscure lyrics and promote the music on the Internet. With hard work, an audience (no matter how small and loyal) will be found.

If you only write, and never perform or record, you are dependent entirely on other artists to monetize your work. You really don’t have the option to write an obscure, artistic masterpiece, because it will sit on your shelf forever. You can’t write too personally. You can’t write too metaphorically either. These options aren’t available to you.

Why? Well, brace yourself for the hypocrisy : it isn’t a level playing field.

In most pitch meetings a song gets a verse and chorus to "kill" the producer and artist. If you haven't killed them by the end of the first chorus, your shot is over. They don’t discuss possible interpretations of your lyric, and they don’t keep listening hoping the song will clarify itself. No one has time. They are at the meeting for one reason : they haven’t written or found or cut the smash that the label thinks they need for the new CD.

This is a common mistake that many pure songwriters make-- they write as if they’re singer-songwriters. They write as if there's no one in between them and the audience. In fact, there is a big wall between the pure songwriter and the audience. It's called the Music Industry. You must first scale this wall or the audience will never even hear your song.

The Music Industry consists of thousands of song-jaded, busy people who no longer trust emotional reactions to music because the last time they did that, the record died, and they got chewed out by the promotion department. They aren’t necessarily fans of the music they promote. They need hits for the roster; Martina, Brad, Alan, Gretchen. They go home and listen to Prine, Ely, Emmy Lou, old Merle or Doc Watson. But at the office they listen like robots trained to identify a certain breed of contemporary song : the Clear Channel radio smash. And you get 90 seconds to show them your stuff.

Do I like this fact? No, I hate it. But I was forced to accept it during the restrictive years when I was not a performing/recording singer-songwriter.

Here are some tips for you, the pure songwriter. If you’re a singer-songwriter, these tips won’t hurt you either. Write lyrics that have immediate impact. Don't evade the issue, deliver the emotional blow as soon as possible. Choose hooks/titles that convey an intensity of meaning and impact, such as "You're Gonna Miss This" (current Trace Adkins hit). Study radio lyrics, not Jewel or Joni Mitchell or Dave Mathews album cuts (or whoever you listen to for pleasure). Separate your hobby from your professional craft. Keep your personal lyrics to yourself, write universally appealing, clear lyrics for the industry.

Melodies must contain big identifiable hooks and should be simple enough or repetitious enough to be nearly memorized after two listens. Get to your hooks as quickly and directly as possible. Make the melody dramatic and rangy enough to satisfy singers with years of training and experience. You are pitching to many people whose art is the voice, not the song.

The bottom line is that success is to some degree a calculated thing. You must aim for it. If you shoot in the dark all the time, you’ll probably never hit the target.

And now a word to all of you singer-songwriters. You might need a pure songwriter’s help one day, so don’t judge their motives too harshly. It’s a tough job, and somebody’s gotta do it.

The Madness

I've been inspired lately by something I read in a NY Times article by Roseanne Cash. She tells a story about sending one of her meticulously vetted lyrics to the late John Stewart for his opinion. John replied to her, "But Rose, where's the madness?"

This reminded me of my own journal passages (posted at songwriter's journal) where I write about something similar:

February 10, 2004
"People want the writing process de-mystified. First thing I tell them is there's a good deal of mysticism involved in the writing of a great song. You can never precisely pin down why a song is great. It resonates, it says things it doesn't appear to say, it brings powerful emotions to the surface in semi-magical ways. These are all very mystical things. Words are symbols that sometimes have arcane meanings that we interpret at subconscious levels. Melodic intervals can effect our moods. Harmony in chord structure can affect our brain-waves. All of these ingredients get mixed together like sorcery."

Whether madness or magic, writing is not simply a logical progression of thoughts that arrive at a "hook". We can't solve a song like a math word problem. My friend John Mock says that great art is like an opened window. That's a great metaphor for what happens when we experience a great song or poem. It's a revelation of sorts, a new view.

I recall vivid moments in my life when I was overpowered by the intensity of a starry sky, or caught off guard by the pungent scent of the river on an early summer morning. In these brief moments of sensual surprise the balance is lost and we tip slightly into the madness, and it's sweet.

I think our society has a deep sickness caused by the bottling up of the madness. I don't mean violent insanity, I mean the ability to go beyond the boundaries of logical ordered existence and feel beautifully lost in incomprehensible things. It's good for the soul now and then.

Try to accurately describe the flavor of delicious food and you'll quickly see how insufficient normal syntax and meanings really are. Describe the most beautiful face you've ever seen without saying, "more beautiful than words can say".

We need a little madness in the writing because the desire to express inexpressable things will drive a writer mad at least temporarily. Here's another entry from my journals :

Monday, January 23, 2006
"There's a kind of evocative power in mysterious language when it's used skillfully. Words are vibrations that have literal meaning and also a sonic effect. The sonic part is sometimes ancient-- dating back to dead languages-- and some words were contrived based on what an object represented spiritually or how an experience felt viscerally. When you think of vague similarities in meaning and sound in words like "cloud" and "shroud", or how beautiful words like "divine" and "harmonic" sound, or how mysterious the word "mysterious" sounds, it seems as if language must be used with the literal meaning as well as the sonic vibration in order to have full effect. Sometimes the sonic power actually overwhelms the literal. When that happens you get poetry that must be experienced rather than thought about like: "Trailing fingers through the phosphor or asleep in flowers of foam" [Shane MacGowan]. It does mean something literally, but it means more as an accumulating vibration of language in motion. When you speak the words, or sing them, it is almost like an incantation."

Setting aside whether a song is commercial or not and examining the process is important. You don't have to be a poet to recognize that Dylan was lost in the madness when he wrote:

"I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws"
("Lay Down Your Weary Tune" Bob Dylan, © 1964; renewed 1992 Special Rider Music)

Sometimes when I'm writing I have to push myself off that safe ledge and free fall into the imagination. Let a feeling find it's own expression rather than forcing words upon a feeling. Forcing words on a feeling is like putting a straightjacket on the madness. It inhibits the writing.

copyright 2008 by craig bickhardt

"Rumors Of My Death..."

"Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated" - Mark Twain.

It's in vogue these days to write about the impending death of the music industry. Those who predict such a dire ending for a monolithic industry don't study history too carefully. Other media industries that have been in their "death throes" in the past include : the Radio Industry, the Newspaper Industry, the Film Industry, Madison Avenue, the Magazine Industry, the Local News Industry, the Network News Industry, etc., etc.

The Music Industry will streamline and survive.

The problem with music is that most of it is created, stored and marketed entirely in the digital domain. There's no buffer to prevent instant digitization, which can be file-shared before the creator has a chance to monetize his work. To understand what I mean, consider that a painter paints on a canvas, which can only be photographed, never truly digitized.

Some recording artists have experimented with creating an artificial buffer to prevent this instant digitizing of their work. Bruce Springsteen released his latest record on 180 gram vinyl first. There was no point in anyone digitizing the vinyl record knowing that a purely digital CD would be released eventually. Meanwhile, Springsteen bought himself a little time and some profit from the vinyl collectors.

Another "buffer" is the trend toward advance CD sales. The artist ensures that a certain number of his fans will buy his latest CD before the release of the digital- hence sharable- product.

This buffer concept is bound to take hold as long as attitudes of consumers trend towards illegal downloading. From a recent New York Magazine article : "...according to BPI, for every digital track that is paid for, twenty are downloaded illegally for free. Domestic sales of physical CDs, meanwhile, plummeted 18.9 percent over this past year (2007) alone."

Interestingly enough, recent investigations into oiNK.com, a major file-sharing network that was shut down last fall, determined that some of the music is posted for download by industry insiders-- people who work in mastering labs, CD shipping warehouses, promotion companies, even radio and CD review personel. "The industry, in other words, has to investigate itself. And what it will discover is that some of the major culprits in this crime are the very same people the crime threatens most— those who work in or profit from the music industry. File swapping is, to a remarkable degree, self-sabotage." (NY Magazine) Isn't this a bit like all those middle class voters who vote against their own financial interests because they focus on the wrong issues at election time? I'd say.

The real story isn't the war between "the suits" and "the pirates". Until it discovers the solution to monetizing creative work, at least enough to cover the expense of creation, the "industry" isn't dying, it's simply contracting.

Look at the big layoffs in December 2007 at Sony BMG and Universal Island Def Jam. The layoffs hit the middle and low-level employees the hardest. Those who didn't get the ax also didn't get Christmas bonuses. Warner Brothers stock is down 58%. How long before the layoffs start? EMI, which was purchased by Terra Firma recently, plans to eliminate nearly $200 million in annual expenses before the end of the year. Let's speculate how they'll do this...uh...layoffs? "Almost four months after Terra Firma boss Guy Hands announced plans to lay off as many as 2,000 staffers worldwide at the troubled major label, he has yet to pull the trigger on the bulk of the cuts." (New York Post, April 14, 2008). Don't worry folks, the trigger will get pulled. Who will lose their jobs? Certainly not top level CEOs, the so-called "suits" that "pirates" like to smuggly claim they are doing battle against. The layoffs will be mostly mid-level to low-level staff, probably some of whom are free downloaders and file posters themselves. And by the way, EMI employs 10,000 people. That's a 20% cut in staff in case you suck at math.

By file sharing an otherwise purchasable track or CD we are effectively insuring that people much like ourselves will be laid off, the suits will still have their jobs (nearly everyone who ran a record label in the 1990s still runs a record label today), and eventually when all this contraction is finished, a vastly streamlined and rejuvenated industry will have invented many clever new ways to monetize with buffers.

Power To The Subscriber !

A few things have come to my attention recently. Beginning with the introduction of a new Bill that would require commercial radio to pay royalties to artists (similar to the way songwriters are paid performance royalties by ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC), there could be big changes on the horizon. Ultimately this is a fair proposition-- Satellite radio and Streaming Internet stations already pay artists performance royalties, and European radio only holds out in protest against the American commercial radio model.

This pending law couples with another interesting phenomenon: the trend towards consumer generated playlists at Rhapsody, Last FM, and a new site I am experimenting with called Finetune (note the Finetune player in the navigation area to your left called Ninety Mile Wind Radio, and feel free to enjoy it while you read). It seems that many consumers are leaning away from owning music altogether. If you can find it, why not just program the content that others have provided for you, rather than download hundreds of files? Most consumers do not have time to manage a database of mp3 files anyway. If they can stream rather than own, and if streaming can provide some royalty compensation for writers and artists, maybe this is one of the solutions we are seeking.

Something else has caught my attention, although it will be old news to some, and that is the prophetic accuracy of the Lawrence Lessig book Free Culture (Penguin Press, 2004). In it Lessig lays out very compelling arguments for why our laws should be stimulating the innovative use of intellectual property rather than clamping down on it. He does not advocate copyright anarchy like some, but rather the recognition that limited free use of music and video content not only competes with illegal downloading, it creates a medium unto itself when extended to classrooms that allow for the expression of concepts that have been limited to text-only essays for decades. In the hands of the younger generation, free malleable content has provided a voice that older generations never had. When tragedies occur, websites like You Tube become the means of interpreting these events with music, video and text put to creative use in the hands of the common man. Some of it is more compelling than the slick corporate media presentations by networks like CNN, which literally announced at one point "we don't write the story, we ARE the story in Iraq".

Mr. Lessig also makes the case that in the future it will be even easier to subscribe to, and access services that store content. Much like a very powerful cell phone browser that is always connected to the wireless Internet everywhere you go (keep in mind this was written 3 years before the iphone was released). When this type of fast, roaming, dependable service is available there will be a shift towards access to web based content and away from ownership via personal storage devices.

So what will keep the creators, the film makers, the authors and composers in business if access to copyrighted material is as easy as signing up for Rhapsody or Finetune or some other yet to be founded domain and creating your playlist or your book and film library? Who will pay for the creation of new content if it can all be borrowed indefinitely?

This is where it gets tricky, but solutions have been proposed.

In Lessig's words :

"Rather than seeking to destroy the Internet, or the p2p technologies that are currently harming content providers on the Internet, we should find a relatively simple way to compensate those who are harmed. The idea would be a modification of a proposal that has been floated by Harvard law professor William Fisher. Fisher suggests a very clever way around the current impasse of the Internet. Under his plan, all content capable of digital transmission would (1) be marked with a digital watermark (don’t worry about how easy it is to evade these marks; as you’ll see, there’s no incentive to evade them). Once the content is marked, then entrepreneurs would develop (2) systems to monitor how many items of each content were distributed. On the basis of those numbers, then (3) artists would be compensated. The compensation would be paid for by (4) an appropriate tax. Fisher’s proposal is careful and comprehensive. It raises a million questions, most of which he answers well in his upcoming book, Promises to Keep. The modification that I would make is relatively simple: Fisher imagines his proposal replacing the existing copyright system. I imagine it complementing the existing system."

So there you have it. The majority of consumers in the future will subscribe to, rather than purchase-to-own content, including music. The radio, including Internets and streaming consumer-generated playlists will be required by law to pay a modest royalty to artists and writers alike. And finally, a simple tax or subscription fee could be used to supplement those who might be harmed or who might slip through the cracks in a strict Royalty-Per-Play system.

It all seems too practical doesn't it?

"Silly Euphemism" or Stubborn Fact

An article by noted author/blogger Cory Doctorow appeared in The Guardian recently. It concerned the "silly euphemism" of the term "intellectual property".

"...the phrase "intellectual property" is, at root, a dangerous euphemism that leads us to all sorts of faulty reasoning about knowledge....Fundamentally, the stuff we call "intellectual property" is just knowledge - ideas, words, tunes, blueprints, identifiers, secrets, databases. "

Speaking of faulty reasoning, this generalization is about as dangerous as it gets. There are actually at least two types of knowledge : factual knowledge (that which can be discerned by everyone using sensual observation or experimentation, such as the "knowledge" that the world is round), and creative knowledge ("knowing" works of art, literature, music, etc. that have been brought into the world through the creative work of one or more minds in collaboration). Words, identifiers, and databases are not the same thing as ideas, poems, tunes, novels, paintings. Factual knowledge can not and should not be owned. It would be ludicrous to say that one "owns" the fact that 2 +2 = 4. However, it's perfectly reasonable to say that one owns a song or a novel one has created, and calling this creation "intellectual property" is not only appropriate but accurate.

Mr. Doctorow goes on to say that intellectual property is not "inherently exclusive" whereas most "property", such as a house, can be made exclusive:

"If you trespass on my flat, I can throw you out (exclude you from my home). If you steal my car, I can take it back (exclude you from my car). But once you know my song, once you read my book, once you see my movie, it leaves my control. Short of a round of electroconvulsive therapy, I can't get you to un-know the sentences you've just read here."

While this may be true, it isn't a sound argument against using the term "intellectual property" to categorize works of creativity. Just because a work of fiction or a song can't be "un-known" doesn't mean a transcription of it can't be made legally exclusive. Knowing my song in your head isn't the same thing as owning a file or recording of my song. The "knowledge"of my song isn't what is being protected, but rather the licensed transcription (a CD recording, an mp3 file, a piece of sheet music, etc.).

Similarly, The Louvre can ban photography of it's famous paintings such as the Mona Lisa, but they can't prohibit anyone from memorizing the image, or even copying an imitation of it it by hand. And no one would argue that the original painting isn't property just because it can be viewed, memorized, or copied (I don't mean forgery that you later try to pass off as the original, just a personal copy).

I agree with Mr. Doctorow that we haven't nuanced the intellectual property language enough. There certainly should be uses of creative knowledge that require no license or payment from the user. For example, anyone should be allowed to sing my song from memory before their own audience without paying for that right. This is a transient experience, not a permanent transcription. It's the same thing as looking at the Mona Lisa, then leaving the museum with only the memory of the image-- something that can't be "un-known".

However, when it comes to the exchange of media containing the original content (the file, the CD, the photograph, the DVD, etc.) we should continue to protect the rights of creators and we should continue to call the contents of the medium "intellectual property" rather than invent further confusion.


copyright 2008 craig bickhardt

The Return Of Musical Regionalism

Recently I performed at Congress Hall at the Singer Songwriter Cape May convention. After my show I spoke with a few young musicians who wanted some advice about their musical careers. “We aren’t trying to be famous,” one said, “we’re just trying to make a little money to survive, and play our music.” That sounded sensible to me. With the empowerment of the Internet, there are more and more artists and writers choosing to pursue their art regardless of how much success it brings them. This seems healthy for the music. What we have once again is a decentralized industry consisting of the local scenes of dozens of major markets, and there's great music to be found in all of them.

This is a reactionary movement in some ways. The sterility and sameness of the product that has been mass promoted by the corporate labels has begun to seem just like those endless exits off the interstates staked out by Wendy's, Starbucks and Ruby Tuesday. They figure if you drive no more than a mile from the highway you'll never know you've left home. This is exactly the experience most people DON'T want when they travel. They yearn for some local color, a cool little diner or coffee shop, or a clean inexpensive motel where you can can see some of the indigenous culture. The same is true of the music. There's nothing better when I'm on the road than to catch some great local picking somewhere between Charleston West Virginia and Asheville North Carolina. Fortunately the recent explosion of the coffeehouse and listening room has enabled many regional performers to tour within a few hours of home, find plenty of fans, keep a low overhead, meet expenses, and in some cases eke out at least a supplemental income.

Interestingly enough, there’s a paradox here. As the Internet reaches more globally, the music is becoming more regional. This is in stark contrast to the traditional music industry, which ignored the Internet for years, thought globally, and brought us more and more homogenized soulless music.

Where does this leave the traditional music industry? As Trent Reznor admitted in a recent interview, it was good to have those major labels sometimes because it freed us up to make music rather than deal with the radio guy and the promotion guy. But we paid a premium for our dependence on record labels, and as it turns out, their jobs weren’t so damn hard. Most of us manage to make our music, update our My Space pages, book a few gigs, print up the posters, submit our CDs to indie radio, ship the CDs that sell on our websites, and still have time to write a blog, answer email, and get to sound check.

The big labels are missing the boat. If they were to partner with some of the more successful regional artists and be content to earn less off of more artists, their bottom line would go down and their profits would eventually rise. Why? Because there’d be no need to hire a bloated staff of people whose only job, it turns out, is pretending that promotion or inventory management is a full time gig. As those of us steadily pedaling down the indie highway can tell you, it ain’t. The truth is, the music business has had too many monkeys on it’s back for decades.

When you pay a record exec a hefty six figure salary, allow him to sign checks for $200,000 recording budgets, hire an overpaid staff of “niche experts”, and then only expect a success ratio of one in five acts, is it any wonder the company is in the red?

This weekend I was talking with my friend Ron Sowell, who has a humble but creatively rewarding steady gig as the musical director of the Mountain Stage public radio show. After I’d run through the litany of complaints and diatribes I’d heard around Music Row last week he said, “When ever I talk to someone in Nashville I hear the same thing. But, it seems to me that most musicians are just trying to create their art and make a little money in the process, too. That’s what people like me have been doing all along!”

I had to admit he was right. The mainstream music industry has operated with a sense of entitlement for the past three decades. Because they were able to throw piles of money at an act, they did, and they always assumed consumers would buy it if it was packaged right. But they've forgotten how important local entertainment and local promotion once was to the establishment of their empires. Where would RCA be without a kid named Elvis who was developed by a little Memphis label called Sun Records. These days the breeding ground for the major labels consists of "regional auditions" for American Idol, which, let's face it, isn't the same thing as taping into the rich local communities where bands, pickers and songwriters have honed their skills in bars, at festivals or revival meetings, on street corners, and in jam sessions for many years. The most talented people tend to shy away from shows like Idol anyway.

Fortunately the facts tell us that indie music sales are up, indie artists have fans who buy music as opposed to stealing it, and without the moronic cloning of cookie cutter artists, the indie labels have given us all of the best music of the past decade. Regional music rules again.

copyright 2008 by craig bickhardt

In The "Jingle" Jangle Morning

A documentary about Pete Seeger has been airing on public TV all week. I've watched it three times because it inspires me. In one segment Pete talks about why he quit the Weavers. "We were asked to do a cigarette commercial and I didn't think we should do it. They said we needed the money but I said we didn't need the money that bad, so I left the group."

I often find myself flipping the tube late at night pondering what has happened to the self respect of so many artists who seem to sell out rather quickly on their climb to fame.

Back in the good old pretentious 1960s and 70s it was very unfashionable for any artist with credibility to sell his song for the purposes of advertising exploitation. Can you imagine Bob Dylan at the height of his popularity allowing "Blowing In The Wind" to be used in a fabric softener commercial? Now, a rock star like John Mellencamp will release his first single as a TV commercial six months before the CD comes out. "This Is Our Country"-- I don't think I ever heard it on the radio, did you?

These days the list of artists willing to gamble their popularity on a product or a company's ad campaign looks like the playlist for Sirius Radio : Ben Lee, Robert Plant and Alison Krauss, U2, A Tribe Called Quest, Black Eyed Peas, The Flatmates, Janet Jackson, Mary J. Blige, The 6ths, ELO, Blondie, Justin Timberlake, Shakira, The Who, Thin Lizzy, Lou Reed (yes, Lou Reed), Josh Ritter, Ryan Adams, Billy Idol, Queen, Guns N'Roses...and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Oh, and there's one more conspicuous name : Paul McCartney. Remember way back in the dark ages of 1995 when McCartney tried to prevent his publisher, who happens to be Michael Jackson, from selling "Revolution" to Nike? Sir Paul may have been a holdout, but in September of 2005 he allowed his song "Fine Line" to be used in a Lexus ad. Ok, a Lexus is a classy car, and Sir Paul is a classy guy, it was a marriage made in heaven. And what about the success stories of deserving artists like Brett Dennon and Leslie Feist, who burst into the national spotlight after TV commercial tie-ins? Hey, maybe this ain't such a bad thing after all. Is there really a huge difference between sandwiching songs BETWEEN the commercials on the radio and hearing the song IN the commercials on TV?

Some of you may be old enough to remember the days when companies hired jingle composers to write their own ad songs. "Things Go Better With Coke", was a popular one. But in 1971 Coke decided to take a fresh approach and enlist three songwriters to compose a new jingle that would also be released as a single to radio. The resulting song was "I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke" (also known as "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing") as recorded by The New Seekers. The campaign was a flop at first until Coke paired the song with a short film featuring people gathered on a hill holding hands and singing the song in unison. This was essentially the first successful music video although it only lasted a minute and was aired as a TV commercial. The commercial revolutionized the advertising industry and led to more and more companies attempting to utilize the combination of a hit song and a compelling visual campaign to sell their products. The most successful so far has featured a different Seeger's song called "Like A Rock". How ironic is it that this humble Seeger name should exemplify both ends of the TV commercial spectrum?

It's inevitable folks. With the virtual death of land radio (someone drive a wooden stake through it's heart please), artists are turning to the only means they have of getting national exposure. Or should we call it "national over-exposure"? True, some don't need the exposure or the money. But consider what a little bump from a TV commercial can mean for an artist who hasn't received national airplay. In 2006 Gary Jules and Michael Andrews hit the #1 spot on itunes after their version of the Tears For Fears song "Mad World" ran in a TV ad for the Gears Of War game. Feist's story is even better. Prior to her Apple iPod Nano commercial airing, her latest CD called The Reminder was selling at about 6,000 copies per week, and the song used in the commercial, which was called "1234", was getting about 2,000 downloads per week. Following the commercial, the song passed 73,000 total downloads and reached No. 7 on Hot Digital Songs and No. 28 on the Billboard Hot 100. Apparently consumers don't care where they hear a song as long as they like it.

A few names besides Pete Seeger's don't appear on the TV commercial logs-- Neil Young, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, Bob Dylan, the names we'd expect to opt out. It would be naive to think they've received no offers. Another missing name, not surprisingly since he recorded a CD of Seeger's songs, is Bruce Springsteen. Granted, Bruce could probably afford to buy most of the companies that would offer him a TV commercial, but as an appreciator of integrity and principals I have to say I'm proud of his decision to just say no.

I, for one, quietly mourn the end of the days when the "purist" Seeger and his ilk desperately tried to separate artistic integrity from commercial ambiguity. TV commercials might be the only viable solution for some new artists but I'm skeptical that art and advertising can be comfortable bedfellows. The line has already been blurred to such an extent that many people can't tell whether an artist is genuine or a slickly marketed chimera. I even expect that one of these days Coke will start a record label and sign acts just to sing their jingles. And probably the songs will hit #1 on itunes.

copyright 2008 by craig bickhardt

10 Songs That REALLY Changed The World

I normally have an aversion for lists such as this one:

Rolling Stone's 40 Songs That Changed The World

This seems like a typically shallow survey to me. Like most "culture lists", this one assumes that songs, and human history, began with the birth of Rock & Roll, and that our mind altering experiences and taste epiphanies were more important than they really were. What this Rolling Stone Magazine list really represents is how songs shaped pop culture more than how they made any real difference to the planet or our history.

But are there songs that really changed the world?

It's much harder to find them. There may be a fine line between cultural shift and historical change, and I welcome debate. I thought it might be fun to have a little group participation to see if we really can generate a list of songs that helped to cause significant and lasting change in the world. I'll start this off with a few contributions just so you can see what I'm looking for :

"We Shall (Will) Overcome"
When Martin Luther King heard Pete Seeger sing this song he immediately adopted it for his civil rights movement. Originally an old spiritual that Seeger added a couple of verses to, his version became a song of solidarity during many violent months of protest marching in the south. It was an anthem for a movement that eventually changed the status of African Americans. While the change may yet be incomplete, no one can argue that it wasn't a new window on our world view, and not merely some new drapery. This may well be one of the most important songs in American history.

"Helter Skelter"
This song changed the world in a negative way, but who says change has to be positive? In Charles Manson's psychotic mind, this was the Beatles personal message to him to begin his plan of destabilizing society. The Tate-LaBianca murders were meant to be blamed on radical blacks and were supposed to spark revolution in the streets. While Manson never accomplished this goal, he did change forever the innocent facade of the hippie movement and injected fear and mistrust into the hearts of millions. The last remnants of the "peace and love" demeanor of the late 1960s ended with Manson's August 1969 crimes, and "Helter Skelter" played a significant role ushering in an era of disillusion. Manson also caused a much closer scrutiny of cults and cult leaders, a trend that was previously all but ignored.

"I Like Ike"
Yes, the campaign song from 1952:
I Like Ike, You Like Ike
In America's "Winter Of Discontent" Eisenhower emerged as an unlikely leader and candidate for change. The popularity of this very simple clever campaign jingle sounded the optimistic note America was looking for. The results of Eisenhower's election need not be chronicled, but his was the era of McCarthyism, blacklisting, the dawn of the Cold War, Vietnam, and the continued stalemate in Korea. And folks, we are still technically in a state of war with North Korea. "I Like Ike" lingers as a very creepy reminder of a dark era and the power of propaganda. It was hugely influential on voters everywhere.

"Ohio"
For months in the summer of 1970 this song pounded over the airwaves, blasting from car speakers in cities across America. I recall the fear in the streets as Neil Young reminded us over and over that we couldn't trust our leaders. This song not only helped to fuel the anti-war movement (it was often played at anti-war rallies) it even played a small role in the eventual resignation of Richard Nixon. Nixon became more and more paranoid of the outspoken pop music culture, seeking to deport John Lennon and finally breaking into the Democratic headquarters at Watergate to sabotage the counterculture's anti-war candidate George McGovern. Jimmy McDonough writes about "Ohio" in the Neil Young Biography "Shakey" : "In ten lines, Young captured the fear, frustration and anger felt by the youth across the country and set it to a lumbering D-modal death march that hammered home the dread."

"Bangladesh"
Millions have been fed by UNICEF as a result of the royalties generated by this song and the concert that featured it in 1971. Although controversial because some of the funds were never properly accounted for ($250,000 was raised initially, millions since), it's undeniable that tremendous good was done in this seminal fund raising event. This was really the song that set the precedent for future fund raising musical events such as "Do They Know It's Christmas" and "We Are The World". Previous to the release of Harrison's record, music was an inspirational agent of change only. With Harrison's and other superstars' magnanimous gesture towards the starving citizens of Bangladesh, music finally became a financial partner in change. I certainly commend Bob Geldof and Michael Jackson for their significant roles in raising money for similar causes, but the real world changing song, the one that raised the consciousness of all musicians, was written by George Harrison.

"The Ballad Of John Henry"
The story song that pitted the heroic black man against the white industrialist is still considered by many to be true. Various sources conclude that John Henry was a real figure who died in a contest with a steam drill at Oak Mountain in 1887. The Railroads were once the quintessential symbol of labor abuse in America. In 1893 alone, over 18,343 railroad workers were injured and 1,657 were killed. Through the 1920s and 30s laws such as The Railway Labor Act and The Wagner Act were passed requiring railroad employers to bargain collectively and fairly with union workers for improved conditions, hours, safety and wages. This was the peak period of popularity for "The Ballad Of John Henry". It was a motivational and inspirational message for union workers everywhere, as well as a song of Black pride. It resonated well into the 1960s, becoming a staple in the elementary school educational program, the labor movement, the Civil Rights movement, and the folk revival movement.

"Battle Hymn Of The Republic"
Julia Ward Howe's poem set to music was the most popular song of the Civil War era. It was sung in churches, encampments, and on the battlefield. General Robert E. Lee wrote in 1864, "I don't believe we can have an army without music". In the words of Lieutenant W. J Kinchelos of the 49th Virginia Regiment, "We are on one side of the Rappahannock, the enemy on the other.... Our boys will sing a Southern song, the Yankees will reply by singing the same tune to Yankee words." When dispirited union troops needed rallying, the Battle Hymn was often employed. The words instilled a sense of religious might, right, and purpose in the troops causing them to fight on to victory in bloody campaigns.

"Biko"
In 1994 Nelson Mandela called the death of Stephen Bantu Biko the first nail in the coffin of apartheid. Biko was the honorary President of the Black People's Convention in South Africa. He was arrested in 1973 and held without charge for five years, eventually dying of a brain hemorrhage after being beaten by police in his jail cell. The death photo of Biko's bruised body was printed around the world. When Peter Gabriel saw the image he wrote his tribute song. Time magazine's Jay Cocks said of Gabriel's song, "[there is] no resisting either [the song's] heat or its true moral force. Biko is .. . full of ghosts that will haunt any political present." "Biko" led to Gabriel's involvement with the Nelson Mandela concerts, which were watched by over a billion people in 60 countries in spite of an injunction to stop coverage. "Biko" is considered the first song that shed light and raised awareness on apartheid.

"The Star Spangled Banner"
Perhaps a too-obvious choice, my reasons for including this song aren't quite so obvious. Francis Scott Key's poem "The Defense of Ft. McHenry" was set to a popular British drinking song called "To Anacreon in Heav'n". It became the National anthem in 1931. While the song has inspired patriotism for many decades and has been sung at schools, state events, political rallies, and sports games, its more recent controversial uses have probably cause more change than it's traditional uses. Modern interpretations by everyone from Jose Feliciano and Jimi Hendrix, to Whitney Huston and Rosanne Barr have often sparked heated debate and tested free speech in America. While it's hard to find one significant event where the song directly caused change, it has been the soundtrack for many world changing events such as the 1968 Olympic "black fist" protest and the recent New York Philharmonic Orchestra's performance of it in North Korea-- a nationally televised event that some believe has eased tensions between the US and the people of North Korea.

"Zimbabwe"
Bob Marley performed this song in Zimbabwe on the day of independence at the actual state ceremony. Marley is considered by many to be the artist of the twentieth century because his music embodied values virtually non-existent in other entertainers. He is an icon of cultural change and grounded spiritual beliefs. No other artist's likeness looks more at home on an armband or t-shirt because he was a movement unto himself. I could nominate a few Marley songs for this list, but the one I've chosen has special significance in light of the current disintegration of Zimbabwe. The song is now a call to action and revolution and it may be in the process of helping to transform the world for a second time.

* * * * *
You can take it from here... Thanks for participating (or not) !

Why itunes Is Winning

With the announcement last week that itunes has become the #2 retail outlet for music (trailing only behind Walmart), it's time to concede that not only is the digital download growing in popularity as the CD wanes, but that consumers have latched onto the conveniences associated with the downloadable file and there will be no turning back.

On Christmas day 2007, a day when Walmart and other physical (non-virtual) CD retailers do no business at all, itunes sold 20,000,000 downloads. This clearly illustrates why the CD can no longer compete.

For the consumer, music is a leisure component that has become integrated into all aspects of daily life in proportion to it's availability, portability, cost effective delivery system, and individually tailored storage and playback options.

When Sony introduced the Discman, it was the combination of the disk and it's playback system that caused CD sales to explode. For the first time it was possible to travel away from home or car based playback systems and still have a high quality listening experience. With a photo-holder sized carrying case and a slender Discman the consumer could be an audiophile and take a scenic bike ride through the park at the same time. The novelty of this freedom was a heady experience at first, and sales reflected this enthusiasm. Consumers preferred CDs not for superior sound quality alone, but for the combination of quality and portability. The ipod and iphone have done the same thing for the portable file.

It's clear also that music is often an impulse buy. I remember as a kid getting that Christmas money and being frustrated because the record store was closed. Last Christmas the itunes Gift Card made a lot of young people very happy instead of very frustrated. That's why 20,000,000 songs were downloaded. Send a kid to the mall with $20 and he'll spend $6 on food and buy one CD. Send him to itunes with a $20 gift card and he'll download 20 songs. It's that simple.

Last week I did a concert/seminar at the Kimberton Waldorf School here in Chester County, PA. In speaking to the large group of mixed-graders I asked them where they got their music. I received an instantaneous and unanimous answer "itunes!"

But this is not, as some would have it, an age related shift in buying habits. A recent study determined that 80% of all surveyed adults hadn't purchased a single CD in 2007. Young and old alike prefer the advantages of the digital download over the CD.

What the record industry should be doing instead of whining about loss of profits, is to come up with upgrades that reflect the consumer's preferences. We can predict what they will want : 1) higher quality file formats at retail, 2) easier and more convenient downloading options and payment options, 3) more reliable storage and back-up, such as a form of download that allows buyers to re-access a lost file without re-purchasing the song, 4) more customizable playback options such as built in re-mix capabilities and files that convert themselves to various formats at the click of a mouse.

If the record industry wants to keep it's share of the consumer's purchasing power it must compete in the open market with those who have seized the innovation initiative that the record (read "CD") industry failed to seize at the outset of the downloading revolution. Instead of greedily protecting their obsolete interests and suing grandmothers, they should have welcomed the opportunity to bring in 20,000,000 downloads on Christmas day.

copyright 2008 by craig bickhardt

NMW Spotlight : Larry Lessig On Copyright

If you find yourself on both sides of the fence regarding the issue of illegal downloading, you aren't alone. The R.I.A.A. has made a mockery of justice and their strong arm tactics aren't solving this very real problem. In fact solutions aren't really what the R.I.A.A. is looking for. They want control, but the genie is already out of the bottle. Technology will never be the same and this is a losing battle. What's needed is a creative idea.

Today's post is a level headed opinion from Larry Lessig regarding copyright, the media and the law. Lessig argues that there ought to be a third category of content besides copyrighted content and free public domain content; that is namely, "Freer" Copyright, which allows limited unlicensed use by the public without the legal headaches. "Freer" Copyright would be at the artists' discretion, it would compete with "Free" or illegal downloading (hopefully ameliorating the younger generation's anarchist view of copyright), and would allow, among other things, the kind of creative interaction that music fans are seeking when they do remixes or create custom radio playlists, or Youtube videos. This is a very compelling presentation, and well worth the 19 minutes it takes to watch. You'll probably change your mind about a few things afterwards.