Friday, December 7, 2012

My Brubeck Remembrances

Legendary jazz pianist and composer Dave Brubeck passed away on December 5th, one day shy of his 92nd birthday. It's gratifying to me how much Facebook and Twitter chatter has accompanied this event, virtually all praising Brubeck's music and many relaying personal remembrances associated with Mr. Brubeck and his tunes.

To that end, a few remembrances of my own.

My first encounter with Brubeck's music was back in 1972, when I was in 8th grade. I'd been taking drum lessons for three years or so, and my instructor, Jack Wagley, had just got me started on Joe Morello's New Directions in Rhythm book, which was all about playing in 3/4 and 5/4 time. I was doing fine with the 3/4 studies but not really swinging the 5/4 stuff. So Jack suggested (no, demanded) that I listen to some Dave Brubeck Quartet stuff, "Take Five" specifically. So I called up my dad and asked him to stop in at the local Lyric Records on his way home from work and pick up any Brubeck album with "Take Five" on it. He ended up bringing home a copy of Dave Brubeck's Greatest Hits, which I immediately put on the old GE hi-fi and played the heck out of. I was hooked.

Well, the very next day after I got that first Brubeck LP, I was leaving my morning choir class when my choir teacher, Mrs. Earnshaw (I know her now as Phyllis Fulford) asked if I'd be interested in getting together some afternoons after school to "play a little Brubeck" with her on piano, band teacher Gene Smith on alto sax, and my ninth-grade friend Brian Siemers on bass. THE VERY NEXT DAY it was. Fortuitous. Of course, I said yes. The four of us put together a fairly good facsimile of the Brubeck Quartet, Mr. Smith had a nice light touch in the Desmond mold, Brian and I locked in the rhythm like we'd been doing it all along, and I even got to throw in my best Morello chops on the requisite "Take Five" drum solo. It was a blast, and we ended up playing "Take Five" at a Choral Club concert later that spring. I don't know who to thank, Phyl or my drum teacher or the unseen hand of fate, but that whole experience got me tuned into jazz in general and Brubeck in particular. And I can still swing the hell out of 5/4, thank you very much.

A little later that year the Brubeck Quartet came to town for an outdoor concert at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and Phyl and Brian and I snapped up tickets. It wasn't the "classic" Quartet; Desmond, Morello, and Wright were gone, replaced (if my memory serves me correctly) by Gerry Mulligan (bari sax), Alan Dawson (drums), and Jack Six (bass). But the concert was fantastic, and I even got talked into getting Brubeck's autograph for Phyllis, who was too shy or embarrassed or whatever to do it herself. This visit coincided with a clinic by Alan Dawson at Fred's Drums, the big local drum shop of the time, which was another fine learning experience. Heady times.

I listened to Brubeck pretty continuously over the years, but never got another chance to catch him in concert until a couple of years ago, after I'd moved up to the Twin Cities. He was playing with his long-standing current Quartet, with Bobby Militello on sax, Randy Jones on drums, and Michael Moore on bass. Brubeck himself was 89 years old, needed assistance getting to and from the piano, but played just as strongly as he had forty years before. It was a privilege to listen to the man play, a true joy.

And now, two years later, Dave Brubeck has left us. His music, however, remains, and remains a considerable influence on the worlds of both jazz and popular music. Brubeck was a unique pianist,  with his dense block chords punctuating the music in unexpected rhythms, while at the same time supporting his sweetly lyrical melodic lines. He was a very intelligent player, applying tons of advanced theory to even the simplest tunes; his own compositions were intricate and thoughtful, things of joy and beauty.

The world remembers Dave Brubeck for "Take Five," and that's fair, even if it wasn't his composition (Paul Desmond wrote it after hearing Joe Morello do some warm ups in five) and even if he didn't have a solo on it. But it was representative of his repertoire, cool and intelligent yet still swinging -- just like the man himself.

Dave Brubeck will be missed, of course, but will be remembered -- and will also be the key to other great memories. Thanks, Mr. Brubeck. You deserve a big time out.


Monday, November 26, 2012

Crooked Management

More on the Minnesota Orchestra issues. This article proves it -- orchestra management cooked the books to make things look better when they were asking for corporate donations to redo Symphony Hall, then cooked them again to make things look worse when it was time to renegotiate the musician's contract. Also, a very explicit desire to "reset the business model." Here's the relevant quote:


"Balances in 2009 and 2010 would support our state bonding aspirations," Bryan Ebensteiner, vice president of finance, told the orchestra's executive committee in September 2009, "while the deficits in 2011 and 2012 would demonstrate the need to reset the business model."

What a bunch of lying, backstabbing, unappreciative crooks. These people should not be involved in any artistic endeavor in our community. The orchestra board should be deposed.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Best Demo Music

CNET's "Audiophiliac" Steve Guttenberg has laid out his top albums for demoing speakers and headphones. (Here's his list.) As I don't own most of the albums on his list, I can't confirm or object, but of the two albums I do own (Holly Cole's Temptation and Rosanne Cash's Ten Song Demo), I'd say they're good choices.

A while back I put together an "audiophile playlist" that contains the tracks I use to show off my own system. Here's what's on the playlist, in no certain order:

  • "The Look of Love," Dusty Springfield, Casino Royale. This soundtrack to the 1960s movie, with music by Burt Bacharach, has long been an audiophile's delight. Dusty's vocals on this track are just so close and breathy, you really get the feeling she's sitting right beside.
  • "Don't Know Why," Norah Jones, Come Away with Me. More tight breathy vocals. Doesn't get much better than this. 
  • "I Don't Like Mondays" and "Time," Tori Amos, Strange Little Girls. Very upfront vocals, great presence.
  • "Written on the Back of His Hand" and "Song for Molly," Lucy Kaplansky, Every Single Day
  • "Priscilla," Suzanne Vega, Songs in Red and Gray. Chest-thumping bass drum.
  • "Stockings," Suzanne Vega, Nine Objects of Desire. 
  • "Brothers in Arms" and "Why Worry," Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms. Terrific (and terrifically recorded) guitar work from the legendary Mark Knopfler.
  • "You're a Big Girl Now" and "Simple Twist of Fate," Bob Dylan, Blood on the Tracks. Some of the best recorded acoustic guitar work ever.
  • "Round Here," Counting Crows, August and Everything After. Really. Just listen to it.
  • "Love Turns 40," Vienna Teng, Dreaming Through the Noise.
  • "Walk Away Renee," Linda Ronstadt and Ann Savoy, Adieu False Heart
  • "New Favorite" and "Let Me Touch You For Awhile," Alison Krauss & Union Station, New Favorite. It's like they're playing in your living room.
  • "Jericho," Joni Mitchell, Don Juan's Reckless Daughter. Bass by the late great Jaco Pastorius. 
  • "The First Five Chapters," Dianne Reeves, In the Moment: Live in Concert.
  • "The Music That Makes Me Dance," Shirley Horn, You Won't Forget Me.
  • "Peel Me a Grape," Nancy Wilson and Ramsey Lewis, Meant to Be.
  • "Twentysomething," Jamie Cullum, Twentysomething.
  • "Spring is Here," Charlie Haden and Kenny Barron, Night and the City. Intimate jazz, terrific acoustic bass.
  • "Fascinating Rhythm," Dave Grusin, The Gershwin Collection.
  • "Some Other Time," Gary Burton and Ralph Towner, Matchbook. Vibes and acoustic guitar. Wow.
  • "Electronic Performers," Air, 10,000Hz Legend. Powerful electronics. 
  • Carmen Fantasie, op. 25, Ruggerio Ricci and the London Symphony Orchestra, Carmen Fantasie/Havanaise
  • V: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age (Adagio), Zubin Mehta and Los Angeles Philharmonic, Holst: The Planets

I also put Steely Dan's Aja and Al Stewart's Year of the Cat up there on my demo list, although they're not quite the audiophile quality as the rest of the list. (Aja comes very, very close, however.) Any of these tracks will give you immense sonic pleasure; they're all beautifully and lovingly recorded, without a lot of excess splash and woohoo. Just great music, recorded well.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Changing the (Orchestra) Model

It's becoming quite obvious to me that Minnesota Orchestra management does not see individual musicians as having unique value. Instead, it regards musicians as interchangeable parts. Why bother paying Pinchas Zukerman top dollar when any young violinist fresh out of music school can play the same notes?

What the MO management really is trying to do is to change the model for the entire orchestra, from a world-class artistic ensemble to a (perhaps) more profitable pops orchestra. The ultimate goal in these contraction "negotiations" is to force out the higher-paid cogs in the machine and replace them with lower-paid, less experienced musicians. Reduce the payroll, reduce the reliance on well-known, higher-paid individuals, and you make more money -- especially if the new guys spend most of their time playing pop concerts instead of more challenging classical pieces.

This is a drastic re-imagining of one of the world's top orchestras, and it's being done with zero transparency and zero input from the community to which the orchestra serves. If management succeeds, they may end up killing this highly regarded artistic organization and replacing it with a less-regarded, more generic pop ensemble of undistinguished players.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Digital Music in Windows 8

I've been using and writing about Windows 8 for some time now, for my two books Absolute Beginner's Guide to Computer Basics, Windows 8 Edition, and Easy Computer Basics, Windows 8 Edition. I just now got around to upgrading my aging Niveus media center PC to Windows 8, however, so I can now speak to the Windows 8 experience for digital music in the living room. 

First, about the upgrade. My Niveus Denali HTPC is getting a little long in the tooth. I'm pretty sure it dates back to 2005 or so, but in 2008, following a massive system failure, the good folks at Niveus put in a new motherboard and other internals, free of charge. So let's call it a 2008 model, still four years old, still running Windows Vista.

The upgrade went relatively smoothly. The only big issue was that, post-upgrade, Windows couldn't find my sound card or install proper drivers. Fortunately Brian Paper at Niveus helped me out by identifying the proper sound card and a link to the drivers; got the drivers installed and everything worked good as new. Better than new, actually, as Windows 8 is much, much zippier on older machines than Windows Vista was. Feels kind of like a new system.

(Kudos to Brian and the guys at Niveus for their continued assistance and support -- which they really don't need to do, as Niveus quit making PCs about two years ago. Now they focus on providing digital media solutions for various consumer and commercial markets; no more of those uber expensive, ultra quiet, high-end HTPCs, which I miss.)

Anyway, one of the questions I had was whether the default Win8 Music app (recently renamed to Xbox Music) would suffice for living room use. Quick answer? Nope. I thought the big-tiled interface would work well as a ten-foot interface, but that's not the case; navigation gets in the way. I can use my Logitech remote control to move left or right (or up or down) through the individual tiles, but not from one tile group to another on the Music screen. And, since Microsoft insists on starting Music on the Now Playing section, leading to the All Music section (the focus is on purchasing music, not playing your own), it's difficult if not impossible to move backwards to the My Music section to access my own digital music collection. Even when you get into the My Music section, the album display is much, much too small for living room use. Let's face it; Win8 is designed primarily for up-close tablet use, is somewhat usable on a standard desktop or notebook PC, but doesn't cut it as a living room media center interface.

Which means it's back to Windows Media Center. If you're into digital media at all, you probably know that Microsoft has ceased future development of WMC and even removed it from the base version of Windows 8. But MS still makes WMC available as an add-on for Win8 users, and it's actually free until the end of the year. (Go here to learn how to download WMC for Win8.)

So after I upgraded to Win8 I downloaded my free version of Windows Media Center. It's essentially the same WMC that was in Windows 7, which is a small improvement over the one I was using in Windows Vista. There were a handful of useful changes that I noted, including the following:
  • New Now Playing screen, with small thumbnails of album covers in the background. I kind of like it, but my wife thinks it's too busy.
  • New Now Playing controls after you make a selection. Smaller text, but more options. I give it a wash.
  • New "play pictures" option from the Now Playing screen, launches a completely different photo slideshow than the standard slideshow in the Photos section. Looks like it grabs all photos at random from the My Photos folder, as opposed to any selected subfolder. I like it.
  • New ability to play all albums/tracks released in a given year. I really like this.
  • Appears to have fixed the old Vista bug that downgraded all album artwork to 300 x 300 pixels.
And just a slightly snazzier interface throughout, with hipper fonts. Always nice to put a fresh coat of paint on the old house.

By the way, the potential issue of not being able to boot directly into WMC is an issue, but not a major one. Windows 8 always, always, always boots into the hated Start screen; you can't boot to the Desktop or to Media Center. But one push of the "green button" on the remote control launches WMC and displays it front and center. Turns out not to be a big deal, and I have to deal with the Win8 Start screen not much at all.

The big news, however, is how much faster the entire system runs under Windows 8. No more interminable pauses before playing music after a restart. Much, much faster booting. More responsive menus. Fewer little playback quirks. Just runs better. Well worth the $39 upgrade price.

I'll talk more about the Xbox Music app in a future post. At this juncture I'm not overwhelmingly impressed, but we'll see.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Those Darned Canadians!


Take a read of this article about the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, which played this past season at a slight deficit and is ready to renegotiate musicians' contracts without asking for a cut in payroll. The approach of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra management is in direct contrast to that of the Minnesota Symphony and many other American orchestras. Those darned Canadians want to produce the best possible music they can, and know that that will attract audiences (and donations). What a concept!

I think most American businesses can learn something from Toronto's CEO: "I’m trying to increase the compensation to musicians so that we can attract the best and reward them for great performances." That's right. Pay more to get the best employees, and good things will happen. As an old boss of mine used to say, you can't save your way to prosperity. You have to spend a little get the best people, and the best people will deliver the best results. Period.

Monday, October 22, 2012

More Orchestra Troubles

It's happening again, this time across the river in St. Paul. The St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, asked to take a 33% pay cut (and cut number of musicians and performing weeks) has been locked out by management. A very sad time for the state of music in the state of Minnesota, and across the nation. Read more here.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

How to Kill an Orchestra


More details are coming to light about management's offer to the musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra. Read more details here, from Robert Levine at the Polyphonic.org. It's sickening.

Levine reports that the musicians' yearly base salary is set to decrease from $111,566 to $77,896. Do the math; that's a 30% pay cut. (Some musicians earn more, based on titled chairs and seniority and such, but this what the typical musician takes home.) Again, I ask -- how would you react to your employer asking you to take a 30% cut in pay? Could you pay your bills if you were taking home a third less than you are now?

It gets even worse for extras and subs. (Extras are just that, extra musicians necessary to perform certain pieces; subs are substitutes for regular player who are on vacation, out sick, or otherwise absent for a given performance.) Currently, extras and subs earn the same pay as do the regular players. Under management's proposal, subs and extras not only have to suffer the same 30% pay cut as do regular players, but an addition 25% pay cut beyond that. That reduces their paycheck from the current $2,144 per week to $1,123 per week. That's cutting their pay almost in half.

(BTW, if you think extras and subs should be paid less than regular players, you don't know how this whole orchestra thing works. Extras and subs do the same work as regular players while they're there, but with an added degree of difficulty, especially for subs. A sub might get a call in the morning to report for rehearsals that afternoon, and then have to sightread music they've never seen or played before. I have a lot of respect for these non-regular players, and know that they're worth every penny they're paid. Read this blog post by sub violinist Jill Olson Moser to gain a fuller appreciation of this particular role.)

There's more to it than just the money, but geez, this is horrific. It's especially appalling when you realize that management is asking musicians to take this kind of pay cut at the same time the Orchestra is doing a $50 million renovation to Orchestra Hall. I'd rather stick with the current lobby and such than lose any of the talented musicians who play the music we love. It's a real slap in the face.

Also a slap in the face is the salary of Michael Henson, the Orchestra's President and CEO. Henson's current salary is $404,000 (up from $390,000 three years ago), and near as I can tell he's not taking any pay cut. (In case you're wondering, his salary is 1.5 times the average for that position in similarly sized non-profit organizations.) How can Henson justify his outrageous salary while asking the musicians who create the music to cut theirs by 30%?

Some observers are speculating that his is all a grand ruse by Henson and the rest of management to simply cancel the entire season that the Orchestra is playing outside of the under-renovation Orchestra Hall. The replacement venue is the Convention Center, which is less than ideal -- and, for all I know, might be more expensive than their normal environs. Heck, it's also possible that subscriptions and ticket sales are down for this out-of-Hall season. Rather than suffer lost revenues for this season, why not lock the musicians out and call the entire season a loss? I don't know if this is really the case, but it's certainly plausible.

This situation is unacceptable. If finances are really this bad, then cancel the expensive renovations, slash the CEO's exorbitant salary, and do whatever else is necessary to keep paying the musicians what they're worth. Since none of these other measures are even under consideration, this looks to be exactly what it is -- a frontal attack on some of the most talented musicians in this country.

If management gets their way, many of these players will simply leave for more acceptable positions elsewhere. Is that what we as an arts-loving community want? I don't think so.

I'm not sure what we can do for the musicians right now except voice our support for them and our discontent with Michael Hanson and Orchestra management. If this ends up as badly as it could, the Orchestra will lose a lot of community support -- and ticket sales. Do you really want to give your hard-earned entertainment dollars to the insensitive management creeps who want to punish the fine musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra? I certainly don't, and I won't.

It's that simple. Push through these draconian pay cuts and they'll kill the Minnesota Orchestra as we know it. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

ISO Settles

It looks like the Indianapolis Symphonic Orchestra musicians have settled with management, but at a horrific cost. (Read the details here.) First, there's a 32% pay cut, with the average salary decreasing from $78,000 to $53,000. (There are yearly increases baked into the five-year contract that bring that back up to $70,000 in year five, but still -- how would you like your paycheck cut by a third? And $53,000 is a pretty lousy salary for world-class musicians, don't you think?) Second, the ISO is no longer one of the country's 18 full-year orchestras; the season is now going to be 38 to 42 weeks.

Frankly, these terms place the ISO more in the mode of a community orchestra than a professional one. That's a shame; the orchestra could have been (and was) a whole lot more. Let's hope that orchestral musicians elsewhere (such as in the Twin Cities) don't have to sacrifice so much.

You know, this never would have happened to a professional sports team.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Bye Bye Sqeezebox

CNET reports that Logitech has discontinued the Squeezebox line of products. That's too bad; the Squeezebox was a nice option for digital music lovers. It's also a bummer if you're a current Squeezebox owner, as there's no indication how or how long Logitech will be supporting you. I think it's another case where everyone's focusing on video and ignoring the audio-only options. C'est la vie.

In related news, Logitech's new UE Smart Radio looks to take the place of the old Squeezebox Radio. You can use it to stream audio from a variety of music services (including Spotify and Pandora), as well as all the digital music you've stored on your personal computer. It runs $179.99, and operates off wall power or (for six hours) its own internal batteries. You control it with an iOS or Android app on your smartphone.  Not a bad deal if you need an all-in-one music player for one of the rooms in your house.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Orchestra Troubles

For classical music lovers, some disturbing news headlines:
Many major orchestras around the country are in the middle of serious labor disputes. Management claims ticket sales are down and donations have dried up and they need to cut salaries. Musicians just want to play, and to pay their bills. What the hell is going on here?

Every situation is different, but there appear to be some commonalities. First, the economy; it's affecting everyone, and is pinching both discretionary income and charitable donations, on which many municipal orchestras rely. Second, the management of many of these orchestras appears to be more interested in the bottom line than in the music; I suppose this is to be expected, but you'd also expect those in the music business to be at least a little bit interested in the music. And third, it's possible, just possible, that classical music is a declining (dying?) art form that has little or no mass appeal in today's uneducated, of-the-moment society, and those few that continue to have interest are literally dying off, leaving their empty seats behind.

I don't know all the details of all these situations, although I do know musicians in both the Minneapolis and Indianapolis organizations. These are all good folks, talented musicians, earning decent but not exceptional salaries commensurate with their years of training and standing in their industry. We're not talking about the money-grubbing 1% here; these are your neighbors down the street who just happen to bow a string or bang a timpani instead of sitting behind a desk or punching a time clock.

I'm most familiar with the Minnesota Orchestra situation. First, some background. The Minnesota Orchestra is one of the top symphonic orchestras in the country, if not the world. If this were a sport, this would be a top-tier NFL team, staffed with the top players in their positions. The Orchestra has a stellar history, dating back to 1903, and continues to lead the way artistically in the 21st century, both at home and abroad. This isn't your normal community orchestra, folks; this is truly a world-class organization, and one that's uniquely supported by an arts-loving community.

Orchestra management is in the process of renovating Orchestra Hall, where the Orchestra plays. It's a truly beautiful building, but could stand a little sprucing up. Management has raised more than $97 million in its current Building for the Future campaign, including $14 million in taxpayer funding for the $50 million Orchestra Hall renovation. So there's some money there.

Under the Orchestra's previous contract, which just expired, salaries grew by 3% - 4% per year. That's not a lot but it's not nothing; at least it kept up with inflation, more or less. Going into the current contract negotiations, however, Orchestra management didn't propose similar small increases; instead, it proposed to cut the average musician's salary by $46,000 a year. That's a 30% to 50% pay cut, depending.

Think about that. How would you react to having your salary cut by a third? How would that affect your household budget? Would you still be able to pay the bills? Or would you be dusting off your resume, looking for something better?

Yeah, that's a huge pay cut. Huge. And it's not as if these world-class musicians are earning a fortune, either. The average Minnesota Orchestra musician earns $135,000 (many less than that, of course), so the pay cut would bring that average down to $89,000. Again, we're talking world-class musicians, the very best in the world at what they do. These are not NFL-level salaries, folks; at the current salary level, a Minnesota Orchestra musician makes less than a typical dentist, or about as much as a captain at a regional airline. Good wages, yes, but not anywhere near excessive.

What happens if management gets their way and salaries get cut almost in half? Well, a lot of these world-class musicians will simply leave. Other orchestras will pay them what they're worth, even if the Minnesota Orchestra management won't. And that means that the Minnesota Orchestra will no longer be a world-class orchestra. Yes, there are lots of talented folks graduating every year from way too many quality music schools, but filling a chair vacated by a player with decades of experience with one just out of music school will not result in the same level of performance. The quality of the music will suffer -- and the audience will suffer for it.

This is not a situation we would tolerate in the world of sports. We're building a new football stadium up here, just as they did back in my old home town of Indianapolis. That stadium, of course, will be financed with taxpayer money. (And don't get me started on why overburdened taxpayers have to pay for new stadiums so that multi-million dollar team owners can make a little bit more money than they were previously; that's inexcusable, in my book, but a different subject for a different day.) The Vikings will not be asking their players to take a 30% - 50% salary cut to move into the new stadium. The public would go absolutely apeshit if their beloved team were to cut salaries and lose players. Just wouldn't happen.

But that's exactly what's happening here in Minneapolis. We're plowing $50 million into a revamped concert hall and then driving away the musicians that helped build that support by forcing them to cut their salaries almost in half. The result will be the classical music equivalent of turning an NFL quality team into a semi-pro team. Instead of having the Vikings play in the stadium, we'll be hosting the Minnesota Sting instead. Sports fans wouldn't settle for that, and neither should music lovers.

I don't know all the finances of the Minnesota Orchestra; few people do, as they haven't been made public. But what Orchestra management is proposing is tantamount to professional suicide. If management wins in these contract negotiations, the Minnesota Orchestra as we know it will cease to exist. We'll be left with a semi-pro pops orchestra, which is maybe what management wants; maybe they'll still sell enough tickets to cover the new lower payroll. I don't know, but it's something that our arts-loving community cannot and must not accept.

Me, I'd rather have the old Orchestra Hall and a top-flight roster of musicians than a pretty new hall filled with sub-par players. It's all about the music, folks. Asking the current musicians to live on half their current wages is insulting. The community needs to get involved and get this problem solved, pronto. (As do all the other communities affected by similar orchestra problems -- including the St. Paul Chamber Orchestra, just across the river.)

If you want to learn more about what's happening in Minneapolis, from the musician's viewpoint, visit the Musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra website. For some interesting viewpoints on orchestra problems across the U.S., check out the Sticks and Drones blog, filled with insight and opinions from two professional conductors. And do whatever you can to support your local musicians; they need all the support they can get.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

New Industry Stats (Good News)


Nielsen just released its Music 360 study of teen listening habits. Some good news about how teenagers listen to (and pay for) music. Some key metrics:

First off, despite all the online options, most people still discover new music via the radio:

  • 48% discover music most often through the radio
  • 10% discover music most often through friends/relatives
  • 7% discover music most often through YouTube

Interestingly, teens listen to more music on YouTube than they do on the radio or online (is YouTube the new MTV?):

  • 64% of teens listen to music through YouTube
  • 56% of teens listen to music on the radio
  • 53% of teens listen to music through iTunes
  • 50% of teens listen to music on CD

What inspires teens to purchase music? Friends, of course:

  • 54% are more likely to make a purchase based off a positive recommendation from a friend
  • 25% are more likely to make a purchase based off a music blog/chat rooms
  • 12% are more likely to make a purchase based off an endorsement from a brand
  • 8% of all respondents share music on social networking sites, while 6% upload music.

What's a better value, CDs or digital downloads? Teens say digital, although CDs are close behind:

  • 63% of purchasers identified digital albums as a very or fairly good value
  • 61% identified digital tracks as a very or fairly good value
  • 55% identified physical CDs as a very or fairly good value

Like I said, interesting stuff. In spite of all the digital hype, CDs and radio are still quite viable. It's a real smorgasbord out there!

Monday, September 24, 2012

EMI/Universal Music Merger

Two of the big four record labels are merging. Is the EMI/Universal merger a good thing? Probably not, as you can read here: http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2012/05/30/why-emi-umg-merger-bad-artists-and-fans.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Top Ten Artists


I was going through some posts from one of my other blogs, and stumbled across this one from back in 2010. It's two years old, but the sentiment holds. Here's how it goes:

VH1, the channel that used to play music videos, recently released their list of "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," as voted on by today's so-called artists. The list is a joke, of course, as by "all time" they mean "the rock era," as no one bothered to mention Frank Sinatra, George Gershwin, or J.S. Bach. Even taking the list as a rock-era list, however, there are some issues.

VH1's top 10 "greatest artists" were as follows:

1. The Beatles
2. Michael Jackson
3. Bob Dylan
4. Led Zeppelin
5. Rolling Stones
6. Jimi Hendrix
7. Prince
8. Elvis Presley
9. James Brown
10. Stevie Wonder

It's hard to argue against the Beatles heading the list, of course, but there's a lot wrong otherwise. I mean, there' no way Michael Jackson ranks over Dylan or Elvis, and there's really no justification for Prince to be in the top ten at all. It's really indefensible.

The problem, as I see it, is defining "best." It's just too subjective. My "best" isn't going to be the same as yours. Heck, my own definition of "best" will probably differ from day to day, depending on how I'm feeling about things.

So, given that most of the artists interviewed for the TV show talked about how big an influence a given artist was on them, personally, I'd like to change the criteria and suggest a list I'll call the "Top Ten Most Influential Artists of the Rock Era." Here's who I'd choose:

1. The Beatles
2. Bob Dylan
3. Elvis Presley
4. Chuck Berry
5. Berry Gordy
6. Phil Spector
7.Aretha Franklin
8. Madonna
9. Joni Mitchell
10. Rolling Stones

Note that these aren't necessarily my ten favorite artists, or even the ten I'd call the "best," however that's defined. Instead, these are the ten who I think most influenced the music of the era.

As to specifics, I'd agree that it's debatable whether Dylan was really more influential than Elvis, but that's the way I see it; Mr. Zimmerman really influenced the way songwriters wrote. As to putting Joni Mitchell on the list, while she's obviously not as talented as Dylan and the Beatles, she influenced and inspired several generations of female singer-songwriters. (Without Joni, no Jewell -- which I'll forever hold against her). Same thing for putting Aretha on the list; she inspired the creation of the female vocal diva, which rules to this day. (Without Aretha, no Celene Dion -- again, I hold this against the Queen of Soul.) And the same for Madonna -- I'm not a fan, but it's obvious that Lady Gaga and her ilk are.

I put Phil Spector and Berry Gordy on the list, even though they're not performers, because as producers they strongly influenced the sound of the music of the 60s and beyond. Gordy, of course, helped create the Motown Sound, which led to the Philly Sound, which led to just about all soul and R&B music of the past 50 years. Spector's Wall of Sound influenced everybody from Brian Wilson to Bruce Springsteen to U2, so he gets on the list easy.

The others are fairly self explanatory. The Stones, while not my personal favorites, influenced generations of bad boy rock and rollers, as well as the punk and grunge movements. Chuck Berry pretty much invented rock and roll and defined R&R guitar, so there's no way he's not on there. Dylan, as noted, changed the way songs were written, so he's a given. Then there's the Beatles, who head up any list no matter how it's defined. There was pop music before the Beatles and pop music after the Beatles, and that's just he way it is.

Friday, September 21, 2012

Amateur Hour

I've been responding a bit to a message thread on Elliott Randall's Facebook page about the shift from album purchases to single purchases in the digital era. As I pointed out there, this is the industry coming full circle; for the better part of the 20th century, starting with 78 RPM discs and moving into 45 RPM singles, music was purchased one song at a time. The classic album era of the mid-60s to late-80s or so were actually a historical anomaly. Whether we're talking the Top Forty era or today's iTunes-dominated market, consumers have generally preferred to purchase single tracks instead of whole albums.

One can bemoan this fact, as many do, but it is what it is. When the conversation naturally veers into why  today's consumers prefer purchasing one or two tracks instead of an entire album, one has to recognize the possibility that maybe there are only a few tracks on any given album worth buying. Now, this certainly wasn't the case during the classic album era, when artists conceived an album as a start-to-finish project, but it was the way it was in the Top Forty era before that. Back then, an artist had a hit or two that led off the album, and the rest of the tracks were just filler. I'm not sure it's that different today, and here's why.

Back in the 50s and 60s, and maybe even early 70s, music was made by professionals -- at all points in the process. An artist chose a set of songs written by professional songwriters, then hired a group of professional studio musicians to record them. The recording was made in a professional studio by a professional recording engineer, and the whole process was overseen by a professional record producer. The results were, not surprisingly, uniformly professional.

Today, however, there aren't a lot of professionals in the process, especially when you're talking about the typical indie recording. First off, all the songs are written by the artist, who is seldom a trained or skilled songwriter. (There are lots of reasons for this self-writing phenomenon, including money -- in the form of songwriting royalties -- and artistic hubris.) The artist plays the music himself, and if it isn't quite as good as the studio pros might have done it, it can always be touched up in Pro Tools. Needless to say, the artist does his own recording, typically in his own "home studio" (re: basement or bedroom), and serves as his own recording engineer and producer. There are no professionals anywhere in the loop to add that extra touch or refinement, and no outsiders period to do any editing or provide useful feedback.

The result is, more often than not, a self-indulgent, amateurish mess. Today's typical album contains too many songs (you can put 70+ minutes on a CD, so you might as well fill them all up) that, frankly, aren't all that listenable. Oh, today's computer recording technology can put a nice sheen on the thing, but the underlying songs are dreadfully dull and unmusical, and the recorded performances uninspiring. Without valuable professional input at all stages, the resulting product just isn't as good as similar recordings made decades ago.

Given the substandard quality songs, performances, and recordings common today, it shouldn't be surprising that the average indie album sells fewer than 2,000 copies (according to Billboard; Soundscan pegs it closer to 500 units). This also may explain why consumers buy just one or two tracks piecemeal from an album. There isn't that much that's worth spending money on; maybe there's a good track or two, but the rest is filler, at best.

Before anybody gets their knickers in a bunch, of course there are exceptions to this. There are lots of musicians who have the innate talent to produce quality music in today's do-it-yourself environment -- but there are lots more who don't. All you have to do is listen to enough new music today, and you'll see what I mean.

I value the contribution that professional songwriters, musicians, engineers, and producers can bring to the table. I wish there were more of it. It's certainly worth considering that the declining quality -- and sales -- of music today could be reversed with a little more professional input.

But that's just my opinion. Reasonable minds may disagree.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Windows 8 for Digital Music Playback

So, how good is Windows 8 for playing music? It all depends.

First of all, if you're a Windows Media Center fan, know that WMC isn't included in the basic build of Windows 8. Microsoft figured not enough people used it to warrant adding the costs for all the codecs into the basic version of Windows, and thus made WMC an optional and extra component to the Win8 Pro version. You can easily add the Media Center pack from within Win8, for a negligible cost (rumored to be in the $10-$15 range), but it's still an add-on, not part of the core operating system.

Even if you add the Media Center pack, know that you can't boot Win8 directly into WMC, as you can with all previous versions of Windows. Microsoft is so damned hell bent on forcing the Metro tiled Start screen experience on everyone that you can't bypass it, not even to go into Media Center. This is close to a deal killer for anyone using Windows in the living room; you don't want to have to mouse and click to the WMC environment, you just want Media Center to be there when you boot up and all the time after. It's a real kick in the ass for music lovers, HTPC enthusiasts, and anyone trying to use their computer as part of an audio/video system.

That said, you can reprogram your universal remote to click your way through the damned Start screen and launch Media Center. From there it's the same Media Center you're used to -- really, the exact same one, since Microsoft effectively killed all future WMC development with the Windows 7 version. If you like what you got now, that's fine.

That said, the Metro-style Music app built into Windows 8 (being rebranded as "Xbox Music" as we speak) may be a good-enough solution for many music lovers. The Win8 Music app looks and feels a lot like the Music component of WMC, and offers much of the same functionality. And, believe it or not, the touch-enabled Metro interface functions pretty well as a ten-foot interface, too. It's all those big tiles that work great on tablets; they work great at a ten-foot distance, too.

Viewing your digital music library with Windows 8's Music app.
Playing a track in Windows 8 -- looks a lot like Windows Media Center.
So, should you use Windows 8 for your digital music needs? Maybe. Try the built-in Music app to see if it fits your needs, and if it does, great. If not, you can always add Windows Media Center back into the mix, even if you can't launch directly into the WMC home screen. That said, WMC's days are obviously numbered, so some sort of ten-foot interface replacement will be needed eventually.

Friday, August 3, 2012

Amazon Cloud Player Updates

If you read my book, The Ultimate Digital Music Guide, you know I'm cautiously enthusiastic about so-called cloud music services, where you upload your own music to cloud-based music servers and then have it served back to you, on any connected device. One of the first and most popular of these cloud music services is Amazon Cloud Player. As I noted in my book, the original Cloud Player service wasn't perfect (limited to just MP3 and AAC files, not WMA), but offered some pretty good features, all in all.

Well, Amazon just upgraded the Cloud Player by giving it "scan and match" functionality. What this means is that instead of having to upload all the tracks in your digital music collection, Cloud Player scans your collection and tries to match it with tracks in its official digital collection. If a match is found, Cloud Player doesn't have to upload your version of the track; instead, it serves you back the copy of the track housed in Amazon's library. If your track doesn't have a match in Amazon's library, then Cloud Player uploads your track to its servers. This is the way iTunes Match works, and it definitely saves on upload time, assuming most of your tracks are common enough to be included in Amazon's master digital library.

With this new functionality comes higher-quality playback. All scan-and-match tracks are served back to you at 256Kbps, which, while not lossless quality, isn't bad. Pricing, however, changes. The free service is now limited to a paltry 250 tracks; if you have more than this in your library (and you do), you'll have to subscribe to Cloud Player Premium for $24.99/year. This lets you store 250,000 tracks, not including any Amazon MP3 purchases, which don't contribute to the limit.

(BTW, Amazon is pushing the new 256Kbps streaming as an upgrade to its previous service, but it's not, not really. Previously, Amazon would play back your tracks at the original bitrate they were ripped at, so if you ripped at something higher than 256Kbps, this new option is actually a downgrade. Of course, if you ripped or purchased a track at a lower bitrate, then the new 256Kbps playback is an improvement. I guess it all depends, eh?)

To add scan-and-match functionality, Amazon had to work out licensing agreements with all the major record labels, as they view any serving of their content as something they get to charge for, even if it's your own purchased music played back by you, personally. (What a bunch of asses.) Hence the new subscription scheme; Amazon has to pay the labels, and this is how.

Anyway, this positions Amazon Cloud Player, even with the Premium option, quite favorably compared to Apple's iTunes Match service. iTunes Match charges the same $24.99/year but only lets you store 25,000 tracks. You also get the new ability to scan-and-match not just MP3 and AAC files, but also WMA, FLAC, and OGG format files. (You can't upload these formats to serve from the cloud, but Cloud Player will find them on your hard disk and match them to other-format versions in its library.)

If you want pure cloud service from the original tracks stored on your computer's hard drive, the Google Play Music cloud service is still the better choice. It's free (for now, anyway), and uploads all the major formats -- MP3, WMA, AAC, FLAC, and so forth. You are limited to 20,000 tracks, however, which could be an issue for those of us with larger libraries.

Then there's the serve-it-yourself option, which you have with apps such as Audiogalaxy and Subsonic. These programs turn your home PC into an always-on cloud server, and thus let you serve your own library from your own PC to any connected device, no middlemen involved. This option is a bit more technical, but worth checking out.

Still and all, Amazon's new Cloud Player developments are interesting and make sense for a lot of music lovers. That $24.99/year fee is a small price to pay to access your whole library from the cloud, and get up and running quickly.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Top Five Portable Music Apps for the iPhone

If you use your iPhone to listen to digital music, you'll appreciate my latest article for Que: Top Five Portable Music Apps for the iPhone. I cover Spotify, Last.fm, Pandora Radio, Shazam, and TuneIn Radio. Plus the iPhone's built-in Music app, and some alternatives to that. Enjoy!

Monday, July 16, 2012

Bob Babbitt (1938-2012)

We lost another great today. Bob Babbitt was one of the main bass players for the group of Detroit studio musicians dubbed the Funk Brothers. Not quite as famous or as influential as the legendary James Jamerson, he came to Motown a little later than James and outlasted him well into the 70s and 80s. I tend to think of Bob as a little new-school funkier than Jamerson, with a little sharper tone.

Bob had plenty of work before and after his Motown days. His pre-Motown tracks include several dates for Del Shannon, "With This Ring" by the Platters, and "Cool Jerk" by the Capitols. (To be fair, that one had a lot of Motown players on it; it was kind of a Motown-in-disguise cut.) For Motown, there was "Ball of Confusion" and "Masterpiece" by the Temptations, "Band of Gold" by Freda Payne, "War" by Edwin Starr, "Losing You" by Rare Earth, "Signed, Sealed, Delivered (I'm Yours)" by Stevie Wonder, "Stoned Love" by the Supremes, "Tears of a Clown" by Smokey Robinson, "Smiling Faces" by Undisputed Truth, "Touch Me in the Morning" by Diana Ross, and Marvin Gaye's "Mercy Mercy Me" and "Inner City Blues."

Bob's post-Motown work included "Mind Body and Soul" by the Embers, "Somebody's Been Sleeping in My Bed" by the 8th Day, "Give Me Just a Little More Time" by the Chairmen of the Board (all three produced by Holland-Dozier-Holland after they left Motown), "Midnight Train to Georgia" by Gladys Knight and the Pips, "Just Don't Want to Be Lonely" by Main Ingredient, "Scorpio" by Dennis Coffey, "Dynomite" by Bazooka, and Barry Manilow's "Copacabana." He also did a lot of work for Philadelphia International Records, including "Games People Play," "Then Came You," and "Rubber Band Man," all by the Spinners.

You can find a more complete discography here. It doesn't take a lot of listening to know that Bob was a terrific talent, one of a select group of studio musicians who made the bulk of the music that we listened to in the 1960s and 1970s. I have a deep respect for those cats who went to "work" in the studios day in and day out and created such memorable sounds. Whether it was the Funk Brothers in Detroit, the Wrecking Crew in Los Angeles, the Stax cats in Memphis, or the pros in New York and London, they defined rock and pop music for a generation. It's amazing what Bob and his colleagues did, truly amazing, and any serious student of popular music should be appreciative.

RIP, Bob Babbitt -- you will be missed.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Paying for Music

There's a big debate going on about whether or not we should be paying for the music we listen to, fueled by a somewhat thoughtful blog post by Emily White, intern at NPR's All Things Considered; and general manager of WVAU, the radio station at American University. (Read her post here: I Never Owned Any Music to Begin With) There are a lot of impassioned responses online, most notably this one from musician David Lowry, of Cracker and Camper van Beethoven fame. (Read it here.) Come back when you're done reading.

The gist of all this kerfluffle is that Ms. White, who works in the music industry and should know better, owns 11,000 tunes, of which she has paid for very few.To be fair, her post was meant to be more about the convenience of living in the world of on-demand digital music instead of buying CDs, but in there she definitely advocates the position that it's okay to download music for free -- in part because it's just so easy to do so. Like, it's hard work to actually go to a store (or click to Amazon) and buy a physical CD, or whip out your credit card while online to buy a track from the iTunes Store. Don't bother us with that inconvenience; we want access to an unlimited library of music right now, and we don't want to have to pay for any of it!

I actually agree with the first part of that supposition; the idea of immediate online access to every track ever recorded sounds pretty sweet to me, and is coming close to fruition with some of the newer streaming music services. But expecting all that music to be free? Not really.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I expect to pay for the goods and services I receive. I know lots of folks disagree, but there's no such thing as a free lunch. If I want the snow plowed from my street or my grandkids to receive a decent education, I expect to pay for it (via taxes, of course). If I download an album from my favorite artist, I expect to pay for that, too. That's because the people who produce these things deserve to be compensated for their hard work. I don't work for free, and I doubt that you do, either. We want to be paid for the work we do. Same thing with musicians; they produce this great music that we enjoy listening to, and they have bills to pay just like us. We should pay them for their music. End of argument.

When you download music from an unauthorized file sharing site or BitTorrent, you're depriving those musicians of much-needed income. That's stealing. You're also devaluing their work; you're saying that the great music they produce is worth nothing. Zero. Zilch. No value at all. I find that insulting.

I have a lot of problems with illegal file sharing sites, both as a music lover and as a musician. As a music lover, I'm appalled by the low quality of most of what's available, and also by the inconsistency; since you're relying on what other people upload, you never quite know what it is you're really getting. There's also a big problem with spyware and viruses, which are rampant among pirated files; I can't tell you how many times I've had to clean up my stepson's computer when he was big into the file sharing thing.

As a musician, I view these sites as what they are -- pirates. Every track downloaded from one of these sites steals money that should be going to the musicians who created the music. And if the musicians don't get paid, they'll eventually quite making the music. Let's see how everybody feels then.

Now, a little bit of sharing is to be expected. Hell, I did my share of taping friends' albums when I was back in college, but that was small scale stuff -- and I still bought a lot of music, including a lot of the albums that I'd previously taped. You'll get no argument from me that passing a CD from friend to friend is a great way to sample new music, and often results in legitimate purchases from new fans.

But to build an 11,000-track library, little of it obtained legitimately, is a problem. Even though Ms. White is an intern now (meaning she's working for free -- at least for the summer), she will eventually venture out into the real world of rents and car payments and such, and desire (nay, need) to be paid for her work. I don't think she'd appreciate the rest of us "sampling" her work for free and expecting her to pay the bills by selling t-shirts on the side. If Ms. White does her job, she should be paid for it -- just the way hard-working musicians should be paid for the job they do.

Bottom line, downloading music for free is stealing, and puts the musicians you love out of work. Don't do it.

Choosing the Right File Format for Your Digital Music

AAC, MP3, WMA, or FLAC? Lower or higher bitrate? Lossy or lossless compression? If you're at all interested in the best way to rip your digital music, check out my latest article for Que: Choosing the Right File Format for Your Digital Music. Your ears will thank you. (Hint: There's no one best solution; every situation is different, and there are compromises to be made.)

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

In Praise of the Brill Building Professionals


Lots of so-called critics like to dismiss the pop music of the pre-Beatles '60s as trite and easily forgettable, a regrettable detour from the harder rock 'n' roll of the Elvis '50s that was put by the wayside when the British true believers invaded American shores in 1964. I, however, disagree.

You see, the story of popular music in the 20th century is written, in large part, by  professional songwriters -- the very folks who produced those oft-dismissed early '60s tunes. Professional songwriters apply their craft to the three-minute song, writing memorable words and melodies for other musicians to perform. The key word here is "professional" -- these are folks who know their craft and put out quality product on a consistent basis. None of that introspective bleeding heart emo crap intoned against a strummed chord or two; we're talking tunes with real melodies that anyone could sing along with.

In the first part of the 20th century, professional songwriting in America was concentrated in that area of New York City on West 28th Street, between Broadway and Sixth Avenue, commonly called Tin Pan Alley. (The name came from writer Monroe Rosenfeld, who likened the cacophony of so many songwriters pounding on so many pianos to the sound of beating on tin pans.) Songwriters, together and in teams, churned out their compositions in factory-like style; the best of these songs got sold to music publishing companies, and were then issued as sheet music (before the explosion of the record business) or picked up by one of the major singers of the day. Sometimes these Tin Pan Alley tunes ended up in vaudeville productions, Broadway plays, or Hollywood movies. The best of the best endured, and became classics.

The best songwriters of a generation filtered through Tin Pan Alley. George M. Cohan, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, George and Ira Gershwin; all were professional songwriters for hire. Their songs were sung by the top singers of the day—Fred Astaire, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Mel Torme, Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett, Nat 'King' Cole, and the like. Their songs were professional compositions, the work of trained musicians who were masters of their craft. They featured pretty melodies, sophisticated chord progressions, and mature, often witty, lyrics; they were written by adults, for adults.

By the 1950s, Tin Pan Alley and the New York music business had moved uptown—to that stretch of Broadway between 49th and 53rd streets. The hub of this activity was 1619 Broadway, in an eleven-story edifice called the Brill Building.

The Brill Building was built in 1931, during the height of the Great Depression. Some of its first tenants were music publishers, including Famous Music, Mills Music, and Southern Music. By 1962 the building was home to more than 150 music companies, and this concentration of companies made the Brill Building a kind of “one stop shop” for aspiring musicians.

The entire music process was contained in that one building. You could write a song on one floor, sell it to a publisher on another floor, have an arrangement written on another, and cut a demo on yet another. If you needed musicians for your demo, there were plenty hanging around; if you were a publisher or a singer shopping for a song, all you had to do was wait around a few minutes and someone would be knocking at your door.

For songwriters, the working environment was Spartan, almost factory-like. Songwriters and songwriting teams occupied tiny cubicles, just big enough to hold a piano (for the music writer) and a desk (for the lyricist). Independent songwriters rented cubicles and tried to sell their songs, one at a time, to the many music publishing companies in the building. The more established songwriters were employed by music publishing firms, typically earning a salary of $150 (or less!) a week.

While the Brill was the nexus of the Broadway music complex, some of the biggest hits came out of a building catty-cornered across the street, at 1650 Broadway. It was this building that housed Aldon Music, which for a time dominated the teen music charts.

Aldon Music was a music publishing company run by a young Don Kirshner and his older partner Al Nevins. Kirshner got his start in the music business thanks to his friendship and professional partnership with Robert Casotto–who became better known as singer Bobby Darin. Before Darin’s later success as a performer, he was Kirshner’s songwriting partner, going door-to-door in the Brill Building looking for business. When Darin finally hit it big as a solo artist, twenty-one year-old Kirshner found a new partner, Al Nevins. Nevins had some previous success as a composer and musician (as part of the Three Suns in the 1940s and 1950s), and with Kirshner, founded Aldon Music in May, 1958.

It didn’t take long for Aldon to make its mark in the music publishing business. Kirshner and Nevins had just moved into their new offices, and were in the process of setting up their new furniture, when two aspiring songwriters knocked on their door. Neil Sedaka and Howard Greenfield were looking for a publishing contract, and they played a half-dozen songs for Kirshner and Nevins. One of the songs was called “Stupid Cupid;” another was called “Calendar Girl.” Kirshner and Nevins signed them on the spot.

Capitalizing on the initial success of Sedaka and Greenfield, Aldon Music began signing the best of that generation’s songwriting teams, and soon became the most successful of all the Brill Building publishing companies. Kirshner and Nevins had an ear for talent, and a unerring sensibility for the newly emerging teen record market.

The list of songwriters signed to Aldon Music is legend. In 1960, Kirshner hired Neil Sedaka’s high school girlfriend, Carole King, and her new husband, Gerry Goffin; they became the most successful songwriting team of the early 1960s. The following year, Kirshner signed songwriters Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil; Mann and Weil wrote separately for awhile, but ultimately teamed up (both professionally and personally) to pen hits for the Drifters, the Crystals, the Ronettes, and the Righteous Brothers. Kirshner also signed another husband-wife songwriting team, Ellie Greenwich and Jeff Barry, as well as the teams of Doc Pomus and Mort Shuman and (later in the decade) Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart. By 1962 Aldon had eighteen songwriters on staff, none older than twenty-six.

Of course, Aldon wasn’t the only Brill Building music publisher; dozens of smaller publishers also contributed to the hit-making machinery in that pre-Beatles era. When Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller brought their west-coast R&B stylings to New York, they took up residence in the Brill Building. Burt Bacharach and Hal David, the era’s most sophisticated songwriters, also paid their dues in a Brill Building cubicle.

(And, yes, the typical Brill Building songwriter was actually two people, working together in a team—one providing the words and the other the music. While there were solo songwriters, such as the talented Toni Wine, and while some members of some teams sometimes wrote with other individuals, during the Brill Building era it was the team approach that ruled.)

The sheer volume of songs that emerged from the Brill Building compound was astounding in its own right; that so many songs became popular hits, and even time-honored standards, further speaks of the talent assembled there. While these talented individuals certainly wrote their share of throw-away pop confections (Barry Mann’s “Who Put the Bomp (in the Bomp, Bomp, Bomp)”, co-written with Gerry Goffin;  Goffin and King’s “The Loco-Motion;” Barry and Greenwich’s “Do Wah Diddy Diddy”), the best of Brill Building pop holds its own with the great Tin Pan Alley songs of Gershwin, Porter, and others of their generation.

While Brill Building pop was every bit as well crafted as Tin Pan Alley pop, the Brill Building songwriters were writing to a completely different audience—the then-new teen market. The 1950s marked the first time that teenagers were identified separately from their parents, and they craved their own clothing, movies, and music. Brill Building songwriters targeted the teen market, and wrote songs that that era’s teenagers could identify with.

As most teenagers (then as now) were intrigued by and infatuated with boy-girl relationships, the typical Brill Building song dealt with teenage romance, in one form or another. The lyrics were more to-the-point than in similar Tin Pan Alley songs, eschewing erudite witticisms for the vernacular of the day that spoke directly to their youthful audience. The music was simpler, too; with some exception, the Brill Building sound built on the simple chord progressions and harmonies of 1950s Doo Wop, with catchy, easily sung melodies piled on top of familiar chords.

Another difference between the Tin Pan Alley and Brill Building sounds was the latter’s emphasis on fully produced records. In the heyday of Tin Pan Alley, a song was put out into the world for any artist to sing, and its success was measured in terms of sheet music sold. By the late 1950s, the medium of measurement was the 45 r.p.m. single, so a completed Brill Building song was quickly made into a demo for a specific artist. The typical Brill Building single (whether recorded in New York or in the west coast studios favored by producer Phil Spector) featured elaborate, often bombastic production. There were lots of instruments on these records, including full string sections playing sophisticated arrangements. And, owing to its Doo Wop heritage, Brill Building pop surrounded the singer with multiple backing voices, especially on those songs written for the Girl Groups of the era. These records were short, catchy, and full of hooks—aimed at teenagers, not their parents. And they all sounded great coming from the tinny speaker on the average car radio.

What Brill Building songwriters shared with their Tin Pan Alley predecessors was a high level of professionalism, and a devotion to their craft. These were professionals, in every sense of the word; they worked nine-to-five to produce the flawless pop concoctions demanded by their listeners. The typical Brill Building songwriting team wrote hundreds of songs over the course of their careers, in some cases writing a dozen songs a week. Given the competition, only the best of the best made it onto AM radio’s top forty hit lists.

And, from the late 1950s to the mid 1960s, Brill Building songwriters sent one song after another to the top of the pop charts. Brill Building songs fueled the careers of many a teen idol, helped to create the Girl Group craze of the early 1960s, and supported the many manufactured groups of the late 1960s and early 1970s, including the Monkees and the Archies.

It’s worth noting that, while the Brill Building might have been the east coast nexus of the professional songwriting world, there were other professional songwriters operating in the 1960s, out of many other locations. For example, there was a west coast equivalent of the Brill Building combine in Los Angeles. The two driving forces of this west coast sound were the local office of Aldon Music, headed by Lou Adler, and Metric Music, the California extension of New York’s Liberty Music. The songwriters working for Aldon and Metric included Randy Newman, P.J. Proby, David Gates, and Jackie DeShannon.

Another songwriting nexus was in Detroit, as Barry Gordy employed a raft of songwriting teams for his Motown label. The Motown composers are legend, and include names like Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye, Norman Whitfield, and Holland-Dozier-Holland.

And not all professional songwriters were American. In England, the center of professional songwriting activity was London’s Denmark Street. Successful British songwriters of the period included Carter and Lewis, Graham Gouldman, Cook and Greenaway, Tony Hatch, Les Reed, Barry Mason, and Geoff Stephans

Of course, Britain was also home to the century’s most successful songwriting team. John Lennon and Paul McCartney weren’t professional songwriters, at least not in the same way Mann and Weil or Goffin and King were, but they did produce a series of popular songs unmatched in the 20th century. If the Beatles hadn’t existed as performers, Lennon and McCartney could have been Brill Building (or Denmark Street) songwriters without peer. As-is, their songs have been recorded by hundreds—if not thousands—of other artists, and were every bit as influential as anything coming out of that eleven-story building at 1619 Broadway.

Interestingly, many Brill Building composers went on to have successful solo careers of their own. Neil Sedaka, Neil Diamond (who, during his stint at Famous Music, penned “I’m a Believer” and “A Little Bit Me, A Little Bit You” for the Monkees), Paul Simon, and Lou Reed all served their time in the Brill Building, although they’re better known today as performers than as songwriters.

The most successful solo artist to come from the Brill Building combine was Carole King. As half of the Goffin-King songwriting team, Ms. King created some of the most memorable melodies of the Brill Building era. After she split with husband Gerry Goffin and moved to the west coast, she began performing her own songs. While she had toyed with performing before (she actually charted “It Might As Well Rain Until September,” under her own name, in 1962), it was her 1971 album, Tapestry, that provided her with megasuccess—as both a songwriter and a performer.

The beginning of the end of the Brill Building era came in 1963, when Kirshner and Nevins sold Aldon music to Columbia Pictures-Screen Gems. Kirshner moved to the west coast to run the parent company’s publishing and recording activities, while Nevins signed on as a consultant. While Kirshner, in his new position, still turned out the hits, they were mainly manufactured concoctions for manufactured groups, such as the Monkees and the Archies.

A further nail in the coffin came in 1964, when the Beatles invaded America. The Beatles marked the ascendance of the fully contained artist, musicians who not only performed but also wrote their own songs. With one new group after another writing its own music, the market for professionally written pop songs began to dry up; by the mid-1970s, that songwriting factory called the Brill Building quickly became irrelevant.

In the 1980s and beyond, professional songwriters became a dying breed—at least in the straight rock and pop genres. Professional songwriting continued to flourish in the fields of movie soundtracks, New Country, and each succeeding current generation of manufactured teen idol performers. The genre that started with Tin Pan Alley writers Harry Von Tilzer, Irving Berlin, and George Gershwin and reached its zenith in the hundreds of brilliant three-minute Brill Building pop songs was, by the end of the century, still flourishing, albeit in a different format, and with a different audience. 

I'm a fan of professional songwriting, and of professional songwriters. There's too much amateurish songwriting in pop music today; ust because some guitar player can put a few chords together doesn't mean he knows how to construct a decent melody. It's even worse with rap and hip hop, where the very notion of musicality has been tossed off the turntable. Enough of this thrashing and bashing about; I long for the days of the well-crafted pop song. The kiddies have run the asylum for much too long. Wouldn't it be nice if the  pros returned to save the day?

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Fragmenting and Personalizing


It's not a secret that the  music industry is a lot less monolithic than it used to be, and a lot more fragmented. Some of this results from the continuing decline of the major record labels; with the rise of smaller independent labels, the big companies have less control over what radio stations play and what music lovers listen to.

But there’s more than that; the industry itself has changed. Back in the heyday of Top 40 radio, radio stations played pretty much everything from everybody; radio was truly cross genre. A single station would play a little British Invasion rock mixed with Brill Building pop, beach music, sounds, Motown, country, even the occasional Frank Sinatra tune. That kind of variety helped promote all musical genres; everybody heard a little bit of everything.

All you have to do is scan up or down the dial to know that that’s not the way it works today. Over the past several decades radio programming has become much more segmented. Instead of a radio station playing music from different types of artists, stations today have relatively narrow playlists. A station might play only hip hop, heavy metal, or alternative rock, and nothing else. There’s no cross-pollination between genres. You pick your station of choice and then never get exposed to anything else.

This blinders-on programming is even worse in the worlds of satellite and Internet radio, where segments get further sub-segmented. You want a station that plays only gangster rap? You got it. How about an outlaw country-only station? It's there. What about a station that plays only Elvis Presley tunes? Yep, there's one of those, too. (Although you can’t yet discriminate between early “good Elvis” and later “Vegas Elvis” tunes.)

Then there’s the fact that most music lovers today program their own music, through personalized playlists on their iPods or streaming music services. When you can program your own music, you need never be exposed to anything new, let alone anything different. How do you hear the latest breaking artists when all you have playlisted is a bunch of New Wave bands from the early 1980s? We're all listening to our own private stations, everything else be damned.

Now, that may sound fine if you’re a discriminate music lover; you know what you like and that’s that. But there this fragmentation and personalization of the market has many ill effects, not the least of which is that we no longer have common musical experiences.

Let’s face it, in today’s digital world, there’s no such thing as a big act any more. In the old days, a hit single could sell tens of millions of copies, because people from all walks of life were exposed to it. Not the case today, where a "big" single only sells a hundred thousand copies or so, and isn't even recognizable by most listeners -- who happen not to listen to that particular format.

There are exceptions, of course; Brit singer Adele did a good job of bridging genres in 2011, due in no small part to the universal nature of her music and her all-around talent. But for every Adele there are a hundred Arcade Fires. Remember when Arcade Fire won the Best Album Grammy in 2011 (for The Suburbs) and the general chorus was “What is an Arcade Fire?” As talented as the group is and as great as that album was, it hit only a small segment of the listening audience. Aside from their small but dedicated fan base, nobody else had heard of them; everybody else was too busy listening to their own personalized and fragmented playlists, and missed out on a great album.

The challenge, then, is to move beyond the music you’re comfortable with and discover something new. That used to be as easy as tuning your radio to the AM dial (which is now filled with right-wing airbags); today, you have to try harder.