Music Publishing & Songwriting

What a week for songwriters and publishers. In the hopes of cutting down the travel costs for everyone in LA, the music publishing and songwriting community seems to have decided to cram all of their NY events into one week, which just so happened to be the last one. On Wednesday there was the AIMP (Association of Independent Music Publishers) luncheon, featuring a live interview with Lava Records president and resident music business raconteur Jason Flom, followed by the NMPA (National Music Publishers Association) cocktail party and annual meeting. Then the next day, all the same faces got together for a big night out at the Songwriters Hall of Fame Awards dinner, an event in which several prominent songwriters each year are invited to be part of a Hall of Fame that after 40 years, still fails to exist in anything but the formidable imaginations of the leaders of the institution. It’s an apt metaphor for the week, actually, in that many discussions are had, much food is consumed, many cocktails imbibed, and in the end, no one has much to show for it all. Meanwhile, back at the office, royalty earnings are in a free fall. Oh well.

Despite the absurdity of a Hall of Fame that has no actual hall, I do have to compliment the Songwriters Hall of Fame on mounting an inspiring evening, which featured amazing performances from a vast array of artists ranging from Bebe Winans, Tom Jones, James Taylor, Chris Daughtry, and Bon Jovi to Andy Williams, Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis Jr. (from the Fifth Dimension), Clint Black and Jason Mraz. And that doesn’t even include the stellar cast of songwriters who were honored:

Jon Bon Jovi and Richie Sambora
Crosby Stills and Nash
Felix Cavaliere and Eddie Brigati of The Young Rascals
Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway
Stephen Schwartz
“Hair” composers Galt MacDermot, James Rado, Gerome Ragni
Brian Holland, Lamont Dozier and Eddie Holland, Jr.
Jason Mraz

What I found particularly interesting about the evening were the acceptance speeches themselves, and the common themes that kept popping up in the thoughts of each legendary songwriter, despite their coming from several different genres and generations. Of course, there was the appreciation of those who had opened doors: early music teachers, early believers in their talent, executives willing to take a gamble, and long-time collaborators who had been there through thick and thin. It’s worth remembering that even as isolated and personal a craft as songwriting is, it is not something one can ultimately do alone. As I say so often in my class at Berkleemusic, Music Publishing 101, and in my book, Making Music Make Money, you can not hope to succeed on any meaningful level without a core team around you– whether it’s fellow songwriters, A&R people, a lawyer, a manager, a handful of interns or all of the above. You can create alone, but you can’t survive as a creator without the help of others who believe in you and what you’re doing.

More importantly, however, the message that seemed to show up in almost every speech from the new members of the Hall of Fame, was the idea of music as a universal language, a way of effecting change, or of touching other people. The idea of songwriting as COMMUNICATION. And it came up again and again, from each writer who accepted an award. Interestingly, what did not get mentioned, or at least not in any notable way, was the idea of songwriting as personal EXPRESSION– a forum to give voice to one’s inner emotional life, to offer opinions on social or political issues, or to exorcise personal demons.

Obviously, we know that both goals, communication and expression, are part of the motivation that makes writers pick up a guitar or go to the piano with a notebook and create a new piece of music. Most of the time, I suspect that it’s the desire for personal expression that gets most writers started on their first songs– a way of letting off some emotional steam when a punching bag is unavailable or someone else is using the phone. In fact, when meeting with developing songwriters, the theme of personal expression comes up more often than anything else. There are lengthy explanations of the situation or relationship that brought the song about, then usually a long, introspective and hopefully in the end, cathartic lyric. Then finally, there is a defensive reaction to any suggestions or criticisms along the lines of “well, I’m not trying to be commercial– this is what I wanted to express”.

While that kind of desire for personal expression was undoubtedly the beginning of all of our creative urges, including those who went on to create classic songs in every different style, what the speeches at the Songwriters Hall of Fame revealed was that the process doesn’t stop there. What makes the Hall of Famers great is that somewhere in their development, they have learned to move from expression, to communication — and that made all the difference in their careers. They can use their personal experience as a window into understanding universal emotions– and their desire is to express those universal feelings in a way that can touch other people– listeners who don’t know (or care) why or how the song came to be, but relate it to their own experience and find that it has meaning. Several of the inductees spoke about the idea that there is really “one universal song” that stretches throughout time and across cultures, and that they, as individual songwriters, had simply offered their own interpretation of it. This just means that they may use their own emotions, their individual social and political agenda, or their own deep personal angst or soul-searching as the impetus for an idea– but once they move to writing the song, they seek to find the universal truth or emotion that makes the song about something larger than themselves.

As I say in my new book, The Billboard Guide To Writing and Producing Songs that Sell, at some point a songwriter has to decide what he or she wants to achieve with songwriting, and the ultimate choice is between expression and communication. Expression is relatively easy, and impossible to judge. If you set out to express something personal, who am I to tell you that it failed? It’s an entirely subjective process. Conversely, communication is far more difficult (how hard is it just to explain a simple task to your colleague at work?) and the success of the communication lies entirely in the eyes of the beholder. If I set out to communicate something and you don’t get it, then I didn’t do it right.

Objective criteria, whether it’s the size of an audience, the response of the audience, or the sales figures of a record, are all reasonably valid means of measuring how successfully a song communicates. No one watches the Billboard charts more closely than the top songwriters. They’re not content to simply express their emotions and put it out into the marketplace. They want to see whether or not people “get it”, whether or not they have touched an emotional chord.

There is a word that describes the act of writing songs for the intention of personal expression. That word is “hobby”. It’s an excellent place to start in the creative process, but not a very interesting place to end. It’s not really a question of being “commercial” versus “non-commercial”. If you write songs that communicate to others, you will find a reasonable, if variable, degree of commercial success, whether you’re Bob Dylan or Max Martin, Leonard Cohen or Jon Bon Jovi.

In an otherwise dispiriting and depressing interview at the AIMP luncheon, record label president Jason Flom (pictured) brought up what has been the elephant in the room of the music industry for over 10 years now. “Where” he asked, “have all the musical geniuses gone?” “Why has this generation not produced even one musical genius on the level of Dylan or Sly Stone, or John Lennon, or Prince?” It’s not something the industry likes to talk about– given the promo departments’ job of trying to convince the public that each new release is the seminal work of a musical genius that they can’t live without.
But it’s something that every serious person in the music business has contemplated, especially as the business has disintegrated over the past five years.

Personally, I think some of the answer lies in the balance– specifically, the balance of personal expression and communication. Somewhere over the past decade, songwriters and artists have quit trying to reach a mass audience with something universal, and settled for reaching a small group of people with a very specialized, narrowly focused, introspective yet public form of self-analysis.

Songs that are primarily intended as personal expression are no different than long, self-indulgent guitar solos, or endless pontificating by the lead singer– they are, as James Brown would have said, “talking loud, and saying nothing”. And the audience endures them, then shuffles quietly out of the club. On the other hand, songs that communicate are probably the one thing keeping the industry alive at all. In fact, they are the only reason our business can or should exist. What the great songwriters will tell you is that if you write one song that communicates on a universal level, it will change your career, as well as the lives of those who hear it. A song like that might even land you in the Songwriters Hall of Fame. Wherever that may be…

Okay, so let me start by saying that after watching “Total Eclipse of the Heart” (Literal Video Version), I take back all the bad stuff I said about YouTube. Sure they steal from copyright holders (think about the fact that this literal video version has earned nothing for the songwriters or publishers of the song, despite millions of views). But I gotta be honest, this video is really, really funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XkD5sJwwrE

On a completely different note…

One of the more important events in the world of music publishing took place last week, and most songwriters probably didn’t even know it happened. The International Confederation of Authors and Composers (CISAC) held its second annual World Copyright Summit on June 9-10 in Washington, DC, with an invitation list that included representatives from across the entertainment and technology fields, including executives from the Motion Picture Association, the Consumer Electronics Association, Microsoft, my good friends at YouTube, as well as government officials and legislators. But the guest list was heavily weighted toward the music publishing community, with senior executives from a wide variety of publishers large and small, as well as collection societies from all over the world.

While I did not attend (someone’s gotta stay home and take care of business, after all), I understand that the discussions were comprehensive and thoughtful, and relatively free of vitriol, despite sizable differences amongst many of the parties involved.

The truth is, both sides are frustrated with the licensing systems that exist, which are admittedly far out of step with the realities of the digital, global world in which we live. Rights-holders feel utterly unprotected and incapable of mounting any defense against the endless and uncontrolled proliferation of copyright violators. On the flip side, many well-meaning entrepreneurs watch their business plans crash on the rocks of the licensing laws, where the use of even one song on a website can require the permissions from publishers and collection agencies around the world. Having recently completed a book that required lyric reprint permission from a number of sources, I can tell you first-hand that the licensing situation, as it exists today, is a slow-moving horse and buggy caught in the middle of a high-speed, worldwide Information Highway.

http://www.amazon.com/Billboard-Guide-Writing-Producing-Songs/dp/0823099547

From what I’ve heard, one of the most constructive ideas that emerged in the conference was the idea of a worldwide licensing database that would allow licensors to go to one stop to obtain permissions on a worldwide basis. Just the challenge of tracking down the rights-holders in each individual territory can often be overwhelming. I still remember working as an A&R person on the “Wild Thornberrys” soundtrack for Jive/Nickelodeon, and trying to license a beautiful African song called “Awa Awa”, a journey that took us from France to Africa to Brooklyn that almost resulted in a last minute change in the movie due to the difficulty of tracking down the rights holders. Multiply this by several thousand songs and you start to get some idea of the challenges faced by many start-up, music-based ventures who are trying to do the right thing by licensing the music they use.

The spirit of cooperation and thoughtful discourse that dominated the Copyright Summit is exactly what we need to begin to address the challenges of making music make money in 2009, and beyond. But the Summit is also a demonstration of the increasing advantages of being in business with a large publisher or collection society in this generation of copyright disputes and international piracy. I’ve been outspoken in my first book, Making Music Make Money, about the importance and viability of songwriters creating their own music publishing venture, and this blog has emphasized over and over an independent approach to the business of songwriting and music publishing. But, it has to be acknowledged that it is becoming increasingly difficult for small, independent publishers, especially those who are not affiliated with the major collection societies like Harry Fox Agency, to get paid, and more importantly, to protect their interests on a worldwide basis.

If you look at the attendees at the Copyright Summit, they were predominately representatives from the major publishers, large independents, the major collection societies like HFA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and their international equivalents. By virtue of size and influence, these are the people who will be at the table when the decisions about the future of music publishing are made, and consequently, whatever new systems emerge will be designed primarily to serve these companies and organizations. Between the battles with the record labels, the digital music providers, the international licensing organizations and the governments of countries all over the world, it’s becoming more and more challenging for a lone songwriter/publisher to defend his or her rights, and also to actually collect the royalties that are due.

Having said that, I’m not telling anyone that they should give up their independence. But I am suggesting that songwriters and independent publishers are going to feel increasing pressure to find partnerships with larger entities, at least in the short term. We are living in a moment in which the rule-book is being drastically re-written. At least during that formative period, there are definite advantages to having one of the major players on your side. When you’re in a street fight, it’s good to have a big friend.

If your company is at the stage of earning consistent, measurable royalties, it may be time to consider striking at least an administration deal (an arrangement in which one publisher does not share the control of the copyright, but simply collects the income and distributes it, in exchange for a percentage fee) with a larger company or organization. Beyond the major publishers like EMI, SonyATV, Universal or Warner Chappell, there are numerous independent publishers that excel at these kinds of services. Check out:

Kobalt Music: www.kobaltmusic.com
Bug Music: www.bugmusic.com
Royalty Network: www.roynet.com
PEN Music: www.penmusic.com

You could also use a collection service like Harry Fox Agency, which is the largest collection organization for mechanical royalties in the US. Remember, these partnerships are not a matter of giving up any control over your copyrights. These partnerships are simply a means of issuing licenses and collecting your money. Just as importantly, they can offer some assurance that you will have a piece of the often haphazard payments being made by digital music companies or monies collected in lawsuits. At the very least, you need to become an active member of ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, as well as trade groups like the NMPA. Now is not the time for going one on one. The challenge of getting paid requires some teamwork.

http://www.harryfox.com
http://www.nmpa.org

If you want to learn more about administration deals and how they work, I’d encourage you to check out my online course, Music Publishing 101 at Berkleemusic.com. The whole course is focused on helping you to create your own independent publishing company. Nevertheless, there is also ample discussion of how to build an effective team to support you in your independent venture, and that includes organizations that can help you get paid. The new semester is starting soon– so check it out today…

What a way to start the week. I picked up Billboard on Monday and saw the news that record sales had just dropped yet again, falling to 18 percent behind May of last year, and down 36 percent from the previous year. Yet, just when I was about to panic, it came to me, like the title of a country song:

When sales go down the drain, you’ll find your money in the sync.

And so it is that all of the focus in publishing today seems to have shifted from mechanical royalties, the money earned for the sale of downloads or little plastic discs called CDs, to synchronization fees, the money paid to publishers and songwriters each time a song is used in a film, TV show, advertisement, video game, etc. This focus would explain why four hundred people were crammed into a room with three hundred chairs at last week’s Billboard Music and Advertising Conference, where everyone in the industry was out to learn how to get the much sought after branding opportunities and advertisement placements that have broken artists from Feist to Groove Armada. We’re all looking for the money in the sync.

In looking over the agenda for that two-day conference, I was struck by one of the subjects that seemed to come up again and again: “What makes a licensable track?”

Good question. If you believe most of the panelists at the conference, it is akin to asking the meaning of life. “Mmm, impossible to say”, “could be anything”, “just depends”, “all a matter of luck and timing”. Wow. Glad I paid $300 dollars to learn that.

Of course, all of this is quite true. There is absolutely no common characteristic that all songs used in commercials or branding campaigns share– anymore than there are common characteristics among all brands. No matter what guidelines one might suggest, there will always be a song that is an exception. If one is looking to discern absolute truth, the “no answer” answer is certainly an accurate and honest point of view. But, if you’re looking to create songs that are more licensable, it’s not a huge help.

On the other hand, if you’re a publisher, and you see hundreds of sync opportunities come and go each year, and you license dozens or even hundreds of songs in advertising campaigns, television shows, video games, movies, singing stuffed dragons, and greetings cards, you have a slightly different perspective. If you do this day in and day out, it’s no secret that out of a catalog of say, 2500 songs, there will be about 10 that will be licensed over and over again. When I was at Zomba Music Publishing, we used to joke that we could cut the whole staff and do nothing but license “I Believe I Can Fly” and probably come out ahead at the end of the year. Every song has an equal opportunity at a placement, but some songs are more equal than others.

So even if it’s only as a creative exercise, maybe it’s worth trying to actually write something aimed at the sync market– rather than writing blindly, and then hoping something just happens to match up with the right campaign or movie scene.
From a publisher’s point of view, here are the qualities that get a song into sync:

1. IT HAS TEMPO. Usually this means it’s up tempo- or at least aggressive enough rhythmically to feel up tempo (as a lot of urban records are actually pretty low in BPM). In certain spots, it’s feasible to get away with something that’s a more relaxed, mid-tempo kind of song, but there are not many advertising campaigns shot to slow, leisurely ballads. Fundamentally, it’s a little difficult to fit a significant portion of a very slow song into what might be a 30 second spot. More importantly, it’s just not very exciting. Most media, whether it’s film, television, advertising, or gaming, is built on excitement and energy. It helps to have tempo.

2. IT SOUNDS GREAT. Obviously, most songs placed in advertisements, films and television shows are fully finished recordings. Still, especially in television, there are a fair amount of demos that find their way into broadcast. Sonically, it should sound like a polished, well-produced recording. This doesn’t mean everything sounds the same– it might be a very stripped-down, “Bubbly” type acoustic guitar and vocal, or a pounding techno track– it has to have whatever sonic quality is appropriate to a finished record in that genre.

3. IT HAS A CLEAR SENSE OF STYLE. You could call it trendy if you want– certainly that trendy sound helped Moby place track after track of his seminal album “Play”. But there are plenty of rootsy Americana acts that find placements, even though they’re anything but trendy or fashionable. The key element is a clear sense of style and an appeal to a very specific audience. The advertising business, and by extension the television business (which is really just advertising with some additional air-filler thrown into the mix), is all about target marketing. Few products or advertisements are aimed at everyone– they are carefully researched to appeal to a specific segment of the population. Consequently, advertising agencies are looking for acts or sounds that very clearly match their target demographic. If you can’t define precisely who your audience is, or which market your song will appeal to, it’s not going to be of much value to the advertising and branding world. Be fashionable and trendy, rootsy and organic, dangerous and edgy or cute and cuddly– but don’t fall somewhere in between or for that matter, try to be all at once.

4. IT’S POSITIVE!!! More than anything else, songs that are sync-able are usually positive, uplifting, inspiring, funny or touching. They are not sad, heartbreaking, angry, melancholy, or potentially offensive. Want a summary of what advertising agencies are looking for? “Happy; ‘this is my moment’ attitude”, “party; having fun with my friends”, ala Sheryl Crow’s ‘Soak Up the Sun’, “inspiring; we can rise above feeling”, think Natasha Bedingfield’s ‘Unwritten’, “family, nostalgia, times of our life”, songs with the word ’smile’ in them, “beauty, purity, vitality”, something like ‘I Believe I Can Fly’. I’ve been seeing these same advertising key words and briefs for fifteen years. I’ve never seen, “sad, reflective, introspective thoughts about a difficult break-up with a boyfriend”.

If you want to be part of the sync world, don’t spend your time writing touching songs about your insecurities and failed relationships. In fact, don’t even spend your time writing love songs about personal relationships. If you’re going to write love songs, write them about family ties, love for friends, love of life, anything but boy-girl love stories.

But what about… ???? I know. You’ve thought of some exceptions to these guidelines– songs that slipped perfectly into the advertising environment despite the fact that they violate one or all of the above criteria. These exceptions are why most publishers prefer to have a catalog of 2500 songs rather than 10. It doesn’t change the fact that 10 songs out of the 2500 do most of the heavy lifting. The goal is not to try to be an exception. The goal is to be one of the frequently pitched songs.

This bias toward positive, up tempo, genre-specific, great-sounding songs is hardly exclusive to the sync world. But as our industry shifts increasingly away from album sales toward single downloads, film, television and advertising placements, publishers and songwriters have to acknowledge that it is next to impossible to find a home for those quietly sensitive, love-gone-wrong ballads that used to make a lovely track #8 on a CD. Love it or hate it, the media world sells fun, energy, attitude and confidence. If that’s where you want to be, then take the advice that the jingle producers of old used to offer their jaded, bored studio singers, as they knocked out one last take of a 30 second song about toothpaste:

Put some smile in it!

Alright– I promise. This is the last YouTube diatribe at least until the end of the summer. But since the most recent call to arms on this blog, I actually wound up doing a NPR radio interview for a story about the growing influence of YouTube in the music biz. The prospect of being on the firing line prompted me to do a bit more homework about the licensing battles involving YouTube at the moment– and the more I read, the more angry I’ve become. So now, I’m really fired up.

Yes, I know that YouTube provides a very valuable service to unknown and developing artists in helping to expose them to a wider audience. I know that YouTube can be a useful A&R service, helping to draw label and publisher attention to particularly reactive songs or artists. But for active or aspiring songwriters and music publishers, I think it’s worthwhile to understand how YouTube has approached rate negotiations with publishers, record labels, and copyright owners. It certainly presents a pretty clear picture of the level of seriousness they are bringing to the negotiating process and to complying with copyright law. It also makes very clear the actual monetary value they attach to music.

In a nutshell, here’s the situation:

With the record labels, YouTube is currently in negotiations to renew licenses made several years ago. While the labels thus far have fared better than anyone else with YouTube, the actual income generated under these early license agreements is negligible. YouTube income has certainly not done much to break the free-fall in which labels now find themselves, nor has it softened the blow to the artists, most of whom are still wondering when that elusive YouTube income is going to show up on their accounting statement.

But on the publishing side, it’s even uglier. For the performing rights organizations, led by ASCAP, the last three years of negotiation have proven extremely disillusioning. Back in 2005, YouTube agreed to make performance payments, based on an understanding between ASCAP and YouTube that both parties would eventually settle on a reasonable rate. Unfortunately, it’s easier to agree to agree than to actually agree. After years of negotiations, YouTube and ASCAP have failed to reach an agreement upon a reasonable rate, and YouTube has paid nothing to the PROs while that fruitless negotiating was going on. If you want to know why those talks fell apart, here’s one clue:

Just last week, a judge from the US District Court ordered YouTube to pay 1.4 million dollars for the unlicensed use of ASCAP’s material from 2005-2008. Then, the judge ordered YouTube to pay $70,000 a month, beginning in January of 2009. To put that in proper perspective, consider that Imagem Music recently purchased the Rodgers and Hammerstein song catalog for somewhere around $20 million dollars. So while the purchase of one song catalog from one writing team (granted a pretty good one) will set you back $20 million, the judge is granting YouTube unlimited access to HALF OF THE ENTIRE SONG CATALOG IN AMERICA FROM THE LAST 100 YEARS for $1.4 million dollars. Even the judge acknowledged the measly nature of the sum, saying:

“Even considering that the fees paid to ASCAP will represent only about one-half of the total fees that YouTube pays to music performing rights, the contemplated interim fees are clearly reasonable, even conservative, in comparison to those called for in other licenses for the performance of copyrighted content on the Internet,” Judge Connor said.

Well, he got that right. $1.4 million dollars is scraping the bottom of the barrel, given the extent of unauthorized use of copywritten material over the past four years. But get this– YouTube thinks even $1.4 million its too much! How much would it like to pay for access to the entire ASCAP catalog, which includes thousands of classic songs from every era in modern music history? Uh, maybe about $80,000?

Huh? Did someone forget a zero or two on that number? No. YouTube has proposed that they will pay $80,000 to cover the last three years, and then about the same amount annually in 2009 and beyond. That’s a pretty sweet deal. It’s also a pretty revealing one, in case you’re wondering what YouTube and Google think copyrighted music should be valued at. Basically, less than the annual salary of one mid-level executive in their office.

Of course, YouTube and Google claim that since YouTube has proven woefully unsuccessful at actually making any money, they shouldn’t be saddled with the hindrance of having to pay fees for use of the material that is at the core of at least fifty percent of their most popular programming. The flaw here is that YouTube was never actually designed to make any money.

Like many internet businesses, the strategy from its conception seems to have been to create a site that was immensely popular rather than income-generating. Of course, this was done with the knowledge that such a popular destination could then be flipped for a massive financial payout to its creators, despite the fact that there were no actual earnings. Not surprisingly, this is exactly what happened when Google purchased YouTube for $1.65 billion. How convenient for the creators that they didn’t have to share any of that $1.65 billion with the people that created the material upon which their “network” is based. They probably would have sent over a check for 80 grand.

When one considers the financial burden of paying ASCAP royalties upon a company like YouTube, it’s worth remembering that YouTube is basically an entertainment network that creates absolutely nothing of its own. Every minute of its programming is made up of things either donated or stolen. YouTube is a TV station that doesn’t even own a camera. Given that they have virtually no overhead, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that payments for rights to the material they use should cost them at least half of what they actually bring in, maybe more.

During the interview with NPR, I was asked about the promotional service that YouTube provides to the music industry. Surely, the exposure that it offers artists at all different levels has to acknowledged. In fact, in this blog, I’ve suggested on several occasions that the smartest career strategy for a new, unknown artist would be to create one great song, do a truly inventive, provocative, funny, attention-grabbing video and post it on YouTube, then see how the audience reacts. As a means of being “discovered”, there aren’t many better, or more accessible forums.

But for established artists, record labels, and publishers, the “promotional” value of YouTube is starting to look rather dubious. Promotion for what? To help artists sell albums? That’s clearly not working. Check the album sales of the music industry as a whole since 2005. Whatever promotional service YouTube is providing, it’s not very effective.

Suppose you owned a butcher store and a man set up a table in front of your shop, handing out free hamburgers. You might complain— but then he would explain that really he was providing a promotional service for your butcher shop, showing people just how tasty a well-cooked piece of beef could be. What seemed to be direct competition for your shop would prove to be a boon to your business. Great.

But what if your butcher business then proceeded to crash and burn, as your customers took the free hamburgers, ate them for dinner and never came into your store again. How long would you wait until you tried to get rid of the less than helpful “promoter” outside your store?

As I’ve said before, the day of reckoning may have arrived. Warner has taken a bold, if marginally effective step, by pulling product off of YouTube. ASCAP continues to fight the good fight. On the other hand, Universal has immediately abandoned the protection of its writers and artists, and hopped into bed with YouTube, trying to put the rest of the industry at a disadvantage. And here’s another less than encouraging story from the front-lines of the battle:

PRS, the licensing organization for publishers and songwriters in the UK, has been in its own rate dispute with YouTube, running into the same negotiating brick wall that ASCAP, NMPA and others have encountered. In a move that took the industry somewhat by surprise, YouTube recently countered PRS’s tough negotiating stance by pulling off all PRS-licensed, premium music videos supplied by the labels in the UK.

It now appears that PRS has come back to the negotiating table with a new offer. Rather than insisting on the previous royalty rate of .22p per track, they have put forward a new compromise. The new per track price?

0.0085p

Yep. From 22 pence to less than a penny. There’s not much you can buy for less than a penny anymore– here or in London. Apparently, a song is one of them. For songwriters and publishers, what you can see on YouTube tonight is your career slipping away…

Never really pictured myself making a call for songwriter solidarity. Not that I have anything against the organized labor movement (I was even a card-carrying Local 802 member for awhile). But as I’ve mentioned many times, songwriting is a pretty lonely task– it doesn’t breed the kind of personality that finds strength in numbers. At the same time, there’s also no escaping that the music industry is one of the most competitive environments on earth– so the idea joining hands with all of the other people trying to get the same cuts, or record deal, or radio play that you are, and singing “We Shall Overcome” seems a bit far-fetched.

However, the time may have come. If you haven’t heard, things are getting increasingly ugly between YouTube and some of the music industry’s primary licensing agencies– culminating in a recent move by YouTube that pulled off all music videos for UK-based users, much to the chagrin of PRS (the English version of ASCAP, BMI & Harry Fox) and many UK music fans. Here in our neck of the woods, it’s gotten so ugly that Warner has pulled off many of their videos, even blocking A&R execs from watching YouTube in their office (now what will they do all day?)

Surprise, surprise: the issue centers on money. After years of negotiation with the music publishers, labels, and songwriter organizations, YouTube continues to fight to lower rates for use of music on the site– even as they have hardly paid up the monies that they owe for the past five years. The tentative deal that have been struck, which is what’s kept music available on the service thus far, have resulted in rates so low that they are almost meaningless (have you ever heard an artist or writer claim they’re really cleaning up on YouTube royalties?)– even as YouTube continues to grow in popularity and overall profitability. Given that a huge percentage of the videos on YouTube use music in one way or another, the music industry would like to see a healthy income from this service and others like it. Is that asking too much?

Apparently so. YouTube is continuing to stall negotiations and press for lower and lower rates. Perhaps they figure if they stall long enough, all the major labels and publishers will be out of business and the industry as a whole will be reduced to a bunch of individual artists desperate for any small opportunity for self-promotion. We might not be far from that point.

Not surprisingly, just as some labels are determined to go to battle, others are ready and eager to cut a deal. While Warner and PRS are taking a confrontational approach, YouTube and Univeral Music have recently announced the formation of Vevo, a “premium” partnership channel that will feature Universal Music artist’s videos and presumably charge higher ad rates, from which the profits can be split between Uni and YouTube.

It’s a nice idea, if in fact the consumer draws any value from a channel that shows videos exclusively from one label. Every marketing survey ever done has indicated that most music fans have little or no idea which label their favorite artist is associated with, and little interest in finding out. The real value in the new venture, at least from YouTube’s point of view, may be in dividing and conquering– pulling one of the industry’s biggest and most powerful players over to their side as a business “partner”, just as the others are getting ready to march off to war. I doubt this is an example of the music industry unity that NARAS, NMPA, and the RIAA were trumpeting in a recent Billboard article.

The problem is, venues like YouTube are the only game left in town. No one sees music videos on MTV. Radio is shrinking like a cheap shirt. Record sales have fallen to the point where last week’s #1 Album sold less than 90,000 units in its first week, the lowest #1 sales total since they started keeping track of these things. For most young consumers, music exists on YouTube, MySpace (like an old legendary club that no one goes to anymore), and iTunes.Of course there are live shows, which are great for established superstars, but pretty limited in their earning power for everyone else. Today’s reality is that the music industry has to make money off sites like YouTube, because it’s the only money there is.

In light of that rather dire situation, I think I have to side with the Warner approach, as opposed to Universal’s “embrace the enemy” tactics. Before our industry disappears entirely, we might want to heed a call to arms. Perhaps its time that the chief segments of the music industry– record labels, artists, songwriters and publishers AROUND THE WORLD– quit acting out of mutual antipathy toward each other and start facing up to our common cause. Maybe it’s time for all the labels to pull their videos off of YouTube. Maybe it’s time for all the publishers to shut down every video that offers a bad karaoke version of a song from their catalogs. Maybe it’s time for music executives to quit watching YouTube (this has become one of the primary spots for quickly finding new music, and I’m as guilty as everyone else), and for artists to start encouraging their fans to do the same.

Unfortunately, the music industry has put itself in a very weak bargaining position– in which the myriad of services like YouTube know that the labels and artists are desperate for the outlet that YouTube provides, and thus unlikely to ever actually treat the service as the blatant copyright infringers that they are (and have always been). It might be worth reminding them that YouTube without music would be a collection of news snippets and people doing funny stunts with their pets. That Susan Boyle video that made the rounds would not have been very interesting without sound.

I’m not normally a militant. But I’m not quite sure how the music industry somehow has managed to find itself on the verge of defeat in a battle that should have been a slam-dunk. There is no question that YouTube has been using music without permission or licenses. There is no question that the right to use music synchronized with visual images requires the negotiation of a sync fee and the issuance of a license. There is very little debate that eliminating all music from YouTube would be extremely damaging to the service. And yet, we find ourselves struggling to negotiate a fair rate. Now, we’re even starting to lose the public relations battle, being branded as greedy profiteers by the very people who have been pirating our music to build their own financial empire.

It might be time for an uprising from the creative community– not complaining, or begging, or negotiating, or tolerating or hoping for better, fairer times in the future. Maybe it’s time for actually making a stand and making some demands of our own, and doing it together.

It’s an old argument:

Do lyrics matter?

Of course, producers, beat-makers, composers, and illiterate A&R weasels (there are more than a few) are lined up on one side, arguing that music is all about the groove, the feel, or the melody, and that nobody really pays any attention to the lyrics. On the other side, there are the lyricists, quietly muttering “Yea well, tell that to Bob Dylan” under their breath.

Sometimes it’s hard to know the truth. Certainly, there are plenty of tracks that succeed more on the basis of the drum pattern than the rhyme scheme, and instances where the melody is a lot deeper emotionally than anything in the verses of the lyric. But when you’re in a publishing or an A&R position, you usually find yourself paying more attention to the lyric than anything else, when it comes to deciding whether or not a song is special enough to stand out.

Here’s my theory:

Lyrics matter if you make them matter. I think a listener decides within the first few lines of the song, and then reconsiders about three lines into the chorus, whether this is a lyric to which it’s worth paying attention. If you grab the listener with the first few lines of the verse, or if you hit him or her with a brilliant concept in the hook line of the chorus, then the listener will stick with you and try to follow the story in the song. Conversely, if you open with a trite predictable line, and the chorus does nothing to grab attention lyrically, then the listener will conclude that this lyric is not important, and will focus attention on something else– the melody, the rhythm, the production gimmicks, or the prospect of a quick ending to the song.

Without question, the importance of lyrics rests somewhat on the genre– rock and singer/songwriter audiences (and critics) attach a great deal of importance to lyrics, but also tolerate a lot of ambiguity; dance audiences don’t care much, and demand something that is at least somewhat congruous with the activity of dancing and sweating and generally going off your head. Country music is extremely lyric-centered, as is hip-hop, while teen pop tends to be focused on the melody. Sometimes, the worst thing you can do is misread your audience, and try to inject lyrical messages or sophistication where it doesn’t belong, or offer up simplicity and directness, when the crowd is waiting for something clever and profound.

The key point is that lyrics don’t have to insightful, brilliant, poetic or even wildly clever in order to be effective. But THEY DO MATTER, more than most listeners even know. The crucial functions of lyrics are to (a)grab attention (b) provide a catchy or memorable “concept” for the song (c) define the “persona” or “point of view” of the artist singing the lyric (d) establish a comfort zone for the listener, by giving them something that they can relate to, in a language they understand. If a lyric does that, a lyric can make a song a hit– even if it’s not going to win any awards for poetry or perceptive insights. Look at “My Life Would Suck Without You”, “I Kissed A Girl”, “Lips of an Angel”, “I Love College” or “Birthday Sex”. There is nothing musically that sets those songs far apart from the competition. Those songs succeed largely because the lyrics perfectly perform all four functions.

Interestingly, lyrics are also becoming a big business. For the first time, the music industry is actually cracking down on illegal lyric sites on the internet, in an effort to drive fans to the legitimate sites, which do pay royalties for the right to reprint. More importantly, lyrics are being reprinted in books, greeting cards, board games and even clothing. A recent Billboard article featured a new apparel company, Lyric Culture, that sells everything from floor-length dresses emblazoned with lyrics from John Lennon’s “Give Peace A Chance” to tank tops with Madonna’s “Material Girl” in hot pink lettering. The company has licensing deals with all of the major publishers. Writers and publishers are paid a royalty based on the wholesale price for each item. This kind of deal, or a one-time upfront fee for smaller ventures, is relatively typical of most products that use lyrical reprints.

If publishers could all get together and offer one piece of advice to songwriters, I’m quite sure that the most likely instruction would be this:

Don’t “settle” when it comes to lyrics.

Don’t decide to go with a typical or predictable title, a ho-hum concept, an idea that doesn’t add anything to the persona of the artist, or language that doesn’t ring true to the audience for whom you’re writing, just because “it sings well” or “it feels right” or “nobody pays attention to the words, anyway”. Lyrics matter if you make them matter. And if you make them matter enough, people will not only pay attention– they’ll pay money, to have them printed on the internet, or in a coffee-table book, or in a greeting card, or on the back of their jeans.

It’s like chocolate-covered pretzels. While I wouldn’t consider myself a chocoholic, I like a good Ghirardelli chocolate bar every now and then, and I can’t resist those little chocolate mint candies that the Campfire Girls sell. In the same way, if you put a bowl of pretzels in front of me while I’m watching a game on TV, I won’t make a big fuss over it. Still, don’t expect there to be many left when you come back a few minutes later. It’s the idea of putting the two together. Chocolate-covered pretzels? I just never quite understood it.

I’ve always felt rather the same way about musical theater. Love straight theater– I’ve done some acting, and have even written several plays that have been done in New York. At the same time, I’ve spent my life working with music. But I’ll admit it– I never cared much for putting the two together. “Guys and Dolls”, “West Side Story”, and “Anything Goes”– those I can’t resist. But the whole concept of people bursting into song in mid-conversation? It just didn’t work for me. We all have our blind spots.

However… my eyes opened recently. In fact, they opened very, very wide when I read the recent news that Imagem Music, a relatively new publishing venture backed by a massive Dutch pension fund, had just purchased the rights to the Rodgers and Hammerstein catalog, as well as the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, which represents works by some of the greatest names in musical theater history (as if Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein weren’t enough) including Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, Kurt Weill and Andrew Lloyd Webber. The price tag? No one is saying for sure, but the estimates are between $225 and 250 million dollars. And you thought Broadway tickets were expensive.

In fact, I’m starting to readjust my point of view about musical theater. Days after the news of the R&H catalog sale broke, I had several other deals cross my desk based on musical theater projects, and I started to notice: compared to the pop music business, musical theater (Broadway) looks relatively healthy. Of course, it’s true that the Broadway audience can be quite conservative in its tastes and a bit older and less dynamic than the Williamsburg hipster crowd. And the odds of success on Broadway are daunting, even for the most proven creative team (witness “Young Frankenstein”).

Nevertheless, dynamic new musicals like “Spring Awakening” (by my good friend Steven Sater!) or “title of show” (shout out to Jeff Bowen & Hunter Bell, and Comden & Green!) have helped to open up new audiences and turn back the graying of the theater crowd, while revivals of things like “Hair” and “West Side Story” have shown how timeless the great musical theater pieces really are. At the same time, musical theater programs are booming on college campuses around the country, ensuring a whole new audience in upcoming generations. Things like “High School Musical” don’t hurt either– spinning off stage shows, soundtracks, summer camps, and merchandise galore.

The truth is, there’s a lot of money in musical theater, and much of it is safe from all of the file-swapping and pirating issues that plague other elements of the music industry. Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to understand how publishing works when it comes to Broadway musicals. In fact, I’m still kind of figuring it out myself. It means re-learning some of what you may have known about publishing in the past, because the rights involved are slightly different than those in the pop music industry. Fundamentally, there are four primary rights involved in a musical theater piece– these are foundations of your income as a composer, or the publisher of a composer (or lyricist):

Grand Rights: These are the rights that apply to a whole musical theater play, in its entirety. “The Sound of Music”, “Oklahoma” or “South Pacific” (that Rodgers and Hammerstein had some pretty big hits in their day), when performed as an entire stage play with the full collection of songs, requires permission from the entity that controls the “grand rights”– and that permission is granted on the basis of a share in the weekly box office income. While the percentage can vary, generally around 6% percent of the box office receipts goes to the songwriters. For a hit Broadway show, that could be somewhere between $500,000 and a million dollars a year. These “grand” rights are usually not directly controlled by the songwriters, but rather by the production company that funded and therefore “owns” the show. In order to perform any dramatic version of any play or musical, the theater company, whether it’s a high school or a Broadway producer, must obtain permission from the owners of the grand rights (and must pay the owners an upfront fee or percentage of the box office).

Dramatic Rights: While the “grand” rights apply to the entire show, the “dramatic” rights apply to an individual song, used in a theatrical production. In other words, if you sing “My Favorite Things” within a production of “The Sound of Music”, the use is covered by the “grand” rights. On the other hand, if you sing “My Favorite Things” as part of a theatrical production that is NOT “The Sound of Music” but say, a tribute to Rodgers and Hammerstein, then the use is covered by the “dramatic” rights. These are the rights to use an individual song in a new musical theater production (for which the song was not originally composed). Unlike the “grand rights”, the “dramatic rights” are controlled by the songwriters and /or their publishers, rather than the producer of the original musical show. To use a song in a revue, or in a show that is not the one for which the song was originally written, the producers of the new show must obtain a license for the “dramatic” use, which like sync licenses, is negotiated on a case by case basis, depending on the prominence of the song, its’ use in the show, and the potential audience for the show.

Performance Rights: While the “grand” and “dramatic” rights provide the basis to perform the songs in the show, the performance rights organizations continue to collect payments anytime songs from the show are used on television, on the radio, in piano bars (imagine what “Memory” from “Cats” has done in that venue), or in concert halls.

Mechanical Rights: These are the rights with which you are probably familiar, as they are traditionally the most important rights for publishers on the pop music side of the business. In the theater world, mechanical rights don’t have much significance initially, as the first ‘cast album’ recording is usually part of the “grand” rights, and doesn’t fall under the usual .091 cents per song mechanical royalty rate. On the other hand, if a song from the musical is re-recorded and released by a pop star, or as part of a collection of songs, then it would require a mechanical license and would earn the standard royalty.

If you’re wondering how all that adds up, try this math: Variety magazine estimated the cash flow of the Rodgers and Hammerstein catalog and the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization at $17 million per year. That’s some serious “Dough-Re-Mi”. More impressively, it’s been doing that (or better) for a long, long time. For example, “South Pacific” dates all the way back to 1949, and just received a new hit revival in 2008. The great works of musical theater are unquestionably some of the most enduring American entertainment ever created. They’re simply part of our national culture.

I remember the first time someone convinced me to try a chocolate-covered pretzel. It wasn’t nearly as strange as I expected. In fact, after a couple of them, I began to see how the saltiness of the pretzel kind of enhanced the sweetness of the chocolate. Maybe it’s like that with musical theater. I always thought that the music got in the way of the dramatic moments in a play. Two lovers are about to embrace… and suddenly there’s a cast of thousands onstage and everyone is singing and tap dancing. Or I felt that the drama got in the way of the music, with all kind of wordy exposition set to rhymes, then crammed into the verse of a song that seemed to never reach the chorus.

But then every now and then you have those moments, “Some Enchanted Evening” or “Someday” or “On the Street Where You Live”, where the two elements come together, and you have to admit that neither dialog nor music alone could have gotten you to that particular emotional place. When it all comes together, you start to understand the excitement that kept Rodgers and Hammerstein or Cole Porter writing show after show.

So if you’ve got show tunes in you, it might not be a bad time to start developing a musical theater project. Don’t think it will be easy–ask Paul Simon about the challenges of mounting a Broadway show. Having had the great opportunity to work with lyricists like Stephen Sater and Don Black, I’ve seen the long road involved in getting a production from a read-through to a workshop to a staging to a regional debut to an off-Bway theater to the Great White Way, and the frustrations that are inevitable parts of the “committee” approach to theatrical productions. (For more info, check out “Title of Show”).

But in case you haven’t heard, live performance is now the best bet in the entertainment biz– you can’t download it, or share it, or copy it. So eight sold-out shows a week at $100 a seat looks pretty good these days, especially if, like Rodgers and Hammerstein, you can keep on doing that for six or seven decades. No wonder they call ‘em “grand” rights. Just thinking about it almost makes you want to burst into song…

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that one of the principle difficulties in songwriting is the isolation that comes along with the gig– and a number of people weighed in on the blog to second that emotion. It’s just too easy to hole up in your studio and shut out the rest of the world. Of course, the danger is that it’s the rest of the world, those people outside of your own four walls, who you’re hoping will actually buy your music. Once in a while, it helps to know what they think.

The truth is, it’s not just the physical isolation that takes its toll on songwriters. It’s the mental isolation: the difficulty of ever being able to step outside of yourself and hear your music as it sounds to others. As I point out again and again in my book on music publishing, Making Music Make Money, one of the most important functions a publisher plays for a songwriter is to be the sounding board that provides an alternate perspective to a writer’s new work. The job of a music publisher is not unlike that of an editor to an author. Any writer needs a certain amount of feedback in order to reach his or her potential.

But what if you are your own publisher? How do you bring a new set of ears to a song that you’ve just spent a week writing and recording and listening to over and over again? That’s trickier, and admittedly, it’s never quite as effective as getting an outsider’s view. But sometimes it helps to have a framework for listening– a way to force yourself to observe the big picture that matters to a casual listener or an industry A&R person, rather than the fine details that become the focus when you’re writing and producing. For this, I offer one suggestion– try this one out on your latest masterpiece. Admittedly, you might not agree with all of my suggestions or standards. But if you’re in the music business and listen to demos everyday, you start to develop a pretty clear picture of what’s important in a song and where most songs tend to go wrong. With allowances then for a certain subjectivity and gut instinct that is part of the process, I offer you:

Challenging, eh? As I said, it’s never easy to be objective about your own work, and even with an outline like the one above, the tendency to minimize your song’s weaknesses (they all have ‘em) or, for many of the less-confident, to obsess over supposed flaws is tough to overcome. Of course, the easiest solution is to try things out on an audience. It’s amazing how clear things can become as soon as your song gets that first public airing.

Unfortunately, many songwriters find themselves living in places where an audience is not easy to find, especially an audience that would be the right one for that particular style of song. Or a songwriter may not be a performer, and may not have access to someone who could perform the song for him or her. So here’s one more solution–one that just became available, and that you might find it worthwhile to check out:

Alien Demo Critique is a new service offered by my buddy
Danny Zook

at Alien Music. Danny is an industry veteran– he’s the General Manager of Cee-Lo Green’s Radiculture Records and God Given Music Publishing and the President of Alien Music Services, which clears samples and handles publishing and administration on a wide variety of releases. Danny has worked with artists and producers ranging from Dallas Austin to Jasper Cameron to new Nashville act, Bombshel. Even better, he’s also a musician and songwriter. Danny unveiled his new service, Alien Demo Critique, at SXSW this year. If you’re looking for an outside opinion on your music, I can’t think of a more valuable or informed opinion than Danny’s. Give it a try…

So I’m back from Los Angeles, where I spent last week at the ASCAP Pop Awards (big shout out to my friends Mikkel and Tor from Stargate, who were named ASCAP’s Songwriters of the Year) and at the ASCAP “I Create Music” EXPO. If you follow this blog, then you know from last week’s posting that the EXPO is the songwriting event of the year, drawing thousands of songwriters, A&R people, producers and artists to three-day convention that is rich in information, songwriting star-power, and networking opportunities. Despite the economic woes, this year’s EXPO seemed bigger and better than ever– a great opportunity to see a lot of friends, sign some copies of my new book “The Billboard Guide To Writing and Producing Songs That Sell”, and pick up some new insights and information from the panel discussions I attended.

I also participated in a panel entitled “Publishing Songs In An International Market”, along with publishers Ben Groff, from Kobalt Music, Ten Ten Music chief Barry Coburn, and star songwriter (and an old buddy of mine) Jeff Franzel. It was a good group of industry people, well-moderated by ASCAP’s Sean Devine, and I think most who were there found it informative and maybe a little eye-opening. So for those of you who couldn’t make it to LA, I thought I’d offer a quick summary of a few key points. It’s not quite the same as being there– but then again, you don’t have to fight the LA traffic to read it. Here are four themes that emerged in our discussion about spreading your business beyond your home territory:

1. To be in the songwriting or publishing business in 2009, you MUST be part of the international industry.

If you want to put it bluntly, there’s just not enough money left in any one territory, even one as big as the United States. If the fish are getting smaller, then you have to catch more of them, and the only way to do that is to cast a big, big net. We live in a global universe, and America’s Billboard Hot 100 reflects that, with a presence from Norwegian writers like Stargate, Swedes like Max Martin, British bands like Coldplay and Snow Patrol, French DJ’s like David Guetta and Latin artists like
Daddy Yankee

or Shakira. In the same way, European, Asian, and Latin charts feature songs by US artists, writers and producers, often in collaboration with writers from those foreign territories. Panelist Jeff Franzel had recently written a song with an Italian composer, to a lyric by none other than Pope John Paul II, which was sung by Placido Domingo and Josh Groban and released in Italy, and now all over the world. How’s that for a cultural mix?

If you’re a classical cross-over writer, you can’t ignore international stars like Bocelli or Charlotte Church. If you’re an urban writer, you bring a unique skill that writers outside of America struggle to replicate– you could do a huge business in Denmark, Stockholm and Tokyo. Country writers, with their finely crafted lyrics, often find a welcome home in England, working with acts like Westlife and Gareth Gates. American metal bands may find more favor in Europe than in the US, just as some American DJ’s are better known in Asia than in the US.

Most of the challenge of music publishing is finding where your catalog fits in the marketplace– and it may not be in the country in which you happen to live. Don’t limit yourself. Be aggressive in exploring all options, around the world.

2. Do Your Homework.

You’ve probably heard this one before from me. But this point came up again and again from every person on the panel. There’s no easy answer to the challenge of international music publishing. You’ll need to analyze and identify the most active international markets for your style of music, and the ones that are big enough, and organized enough to actually generate income. For instance, if your biggest market would be China, you’ve got a problem– no one has yet managed to collect money out of that territory. You need to look at the international charts in Billboard, check out some of the radio playlists or broadcasts from various countries (available online), and start to learn what sounds and styles work in each market.

Once you’ve picked your spots, then you’ll need to research possible partners to help you break that market. If you’ve already done a worldwide publishing deal with a major company, then it’s probably a matter of trying to contact the company’s local office in that particular territory. If you publish your own work, then you’ll need to reach out directly to A&R people in the foreign territory or find a sub-publisher in the region who is interested in representing you. You might want to attend an international conference like MIDEM to make some of those initial contacts, or check out MySpace.

3. You better be mobile.

Having identified a particular international territory where you think your music can work; you can pitch songs yourself, reach out to sub-publishers, or try to establish contacts with the creative community in that country. But if you really want to break in, the best strategy is to get on a plane and go there. There is simply no substitute for a first-hand understanding of a particular market, a familiarity with the production sounds and an empathy with the cultural sensibility of the audience. First, try to lay the groundwork by making a few contacts in the A&R or songwriting community via the telephone or internet. Then, think about scheduling a writing trip to actually spend some time collaborating with local writers and soaking up knowledge of the market.

Without question, the most successful example of conquering a foreign market in which I’ve ever been involved was Stargate’s spread into America, about four years ago. Already well-established hit makers in Europe and the UK, Stargate began their attempt to move into the US market with a trip to NYC, largely organized by Sony ATV Music Publishing. During that first trip, Stargate managed to work their way onto the radar screen of virtually every NY A&R exec– more importantly, they had a chance meeting with Ne-Yo, which resulted in “So Sick”, which would become their first major US hit. What made the trip work was (a) a small, but committed team on the ground in the new territory, combining the efforts of Sony ATV and Stargate’s amazing management team of Tim Blacksmith and Danny Poku, (b) the dedication of Stargate themselves to spending significant time in the territory, staying a month at a time on a regular basis (c) a studio “homebase” that was already a center of activity for songwriters, artists and producers, in this case a studio at the Sony Studios complex (d) a willingness to work with a wide variety of collaborators and to develop and adapt their “sound” to the local market.

Of course, the benefits to Stargate and Sony ATV of crossing Stargate into America are obvious. But there are similar stories every day, albeit on a smaller scale. US writer Jodi Marr bolstered her songwriting catalog by doing Spanish translations in the Latin market, and then hit it big by breaking her artist, Mika, in Europe. UK writer Steve Robson has become a Nashville songwriting star through his work with Rascal Flatts. Italian composer Leo Z has had repeated success with US artist Josh Groban. US urban writer Teron Beal has just launched his own artist career— in Scandinavia!

Somewhere there’s a place for your music– you just have to find it. A willingness to think beyond your own borders is essential to a successful songwriting and publishing career. It’s time to get out and see the world!

Maybe it’s too many childhood hours spent in solitude, practicing a musical instrument or listening to an iPod. But the truth is, many songwriters and producers are loners, with a dangerous tendency to disappear for days, weeks, or even months in the caverns of the recording studio, venturing out only for the occasional coffee or slice of pizza. It’s not a healthy way to live.

More importantly, it’s not a great career strategy. Of course, there’s no substitute for putting the hours into the music-making process– you have to make hits, and hits don’t happen without some effort. Sometimes there’s no choice but to lock the doors, disconnect the phone and try to get the creative work done. But it’s also worth remembering that very few hit makers emerge from total isolation into the bright light of fame and fortune without a little help from their friends.

Just like every other kind of artist or creative business person, songwriters usually develop out of a community. More often than not, they are helped along by an ever-growing support group of true believers; people who believe in their talent and who can provide some help, guidance, or even just moral support. It might be an older, more established artist (think of Prince nurturing Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis), a record label president or A&R person (like Jay-Z and LA Reid with Stargate or Clive Davis with Andrea Martin), a fellow songwriter (Ryan Tedder and Timbaland for instance), a publisher (Evan Lamberg with John Ondrasik), or a whole local scene of other bands, press and clubs (like the Seattle movement that helped
Nirvana

come to be the well know band they are or the current Williamsburg scene) who can provide the energy and insight to propel a new writer to success. Sometimes it takes a whole village to make a hit.

In case you haven’t noticed, you won’t meet those helpful people holed up in your home studio. Every now and then, it pays off to mix and mingle, maybe learn a few things from other songwriters, get the perspective of others in the industry, pick up some business hints for your publishing company, and find some strength and inspiration by being around people who are facing the same challenges that you are and surmounting them. You can call it networking if you want, but too often that implies a certain kind of self-interested, opportunistic, manipulative type of business card-distributing and glad-handing behavior that rarely fools anyone. I prefer to think of it as entering into the community of songwriters and publishers. It simply means coming to the realization that you are not in this alone, that you can benefit from the wisdom of your peers, and that you can help others by sharing with them your own experience.

In a business that is growing increasingly fragmented and isolated, with Protools systems and MySpace replacing the commercial recording studios and live venues that used to be the meeting places for the songwriting community, one of the most important events of the songwriter/publisher calendar is ASCAP’s “I Create Music” EXPO, which is being held in Los Angeles at the Renaissance Hotel next week, April 23-25.

Sponsored by ASCAP, which as the only performing rights organization governed and controlled by composers and publishers is in many ways the original and most fundamental of songwriting communities, the EXPO attracts thousands of songwriters, A&R executives, music supervisors, publishers, and educators for a comprehensive look at today’s music business. The list of panel discussions covers every possible topic of interest to professional songwriters; the array of superstar writers and artists that will be on hand is overwhelming. On top of that, there are exhibitors, showcases, song critique sessions, and plenty of opportunities to ask questions, gather knowledge, and meet new friends and potential collaborators. If you want to make a small investment in your business, this would be a sure-fire place to find some inspiration and jump-start your songwriting and music publishing business.

If you do make it to the EXPO, I hope you’ll take a minute to say hello to me– I’ll be around most of the day on Friday, April 24. From 10:40-11:10am, in the Hollywood Ballroom Exhibit area, I’ll be talking about my new book, “The Billboard Guide To Writing and Producing Songs that Sell”, and also signing some copies. If you haven’t picked up the book yet, I’d love to have a chance to tell you a little about what I think it can do for your songwriting. Later that day, from 3:15-4:30pm, I’ll be a panelist for “Publishing Songs in an International Market”, with a great group of songwriting and publishing friends. International sub-publishing is something that most songwriters don’t fully understand, and it’s something that is essential in order to take advantage of the worldwide market for popular music.

When I graduated from college and moved to New York, the first weekend I spent in NYC was to attend the New Music Seminar, at that time one of the major music conferences of the year. It was a seminal experience for me, in that it allowed me to learn the basics of the business, while at the same time, making contacts that would become my inner circle in the music biz. I met the person who gave me my first publishing deal; I met future collaborators; I saw the Beastie Boys

in one of their first public performances. I worked at a party for independent record labels at the legendary Studio 54, and felt a part of an industry that I had previously only experienced from the outside. Sadly, the New Music Seminar is no more– but there are still those opportunities to find your way into the creative community. One of the best of those opportunities is ASCAP’s “I Create Music Expo” and it only happens once a year. It’s not too late to make plans to be there!