I'm a proud alumna of Berklee College of Music in Boston, MA. I am still a bit active with the college. I go to alumni events, I give money, and I try to see the college every once in a while. I love my "old school" not just because of the vibrant, youthful energy that's there, but because it is a great mix of the old school rules, and the talented students' contemporary applications (and discretionary breaking) of those rules to create great new work. But the traditions remain inseparable from the new creations.
When I was in school there, I got derisive comments from academic snobs along the lines of "How nice. I go to a real college.". From other, well-meaning people who didn't understand that it was a real school, I got "Wow, your school must be like [the movie and TV show] Fame!"
In my head, I'd respond "Yes, that's exactly what it's like. A vocalist has a dramatic moment, spontaneously bursts into song in the hallway, with accompanying music, and background singers that come out of nowhere; and people around her begin to dance for no reason."
At a recent event for Berklee alumni, I got to meet some graduates from the classes of 2006 and 2007 respectively. I asked whether they got the same types of comments today that I got "in my day". I was told that the big question the students of today get is "Are you going to try out for [TV show] American Idol?". The wiseass students today respond with something along the lines of "No, because I have some self-respect, and don't care to sound like Beyoncé or Whitney Houston (ca. 1985) to please some rich, spoiled, non-musician with power." I love that!
Sadder still is the fact that, in order to get discovered, American Idol (winner) Kelly Clarkson had to "sign her life away" to the producers of the show.
I had no idea how disgusting that show's setup is. But I should have known better, because (in that part of the music business) nothing's changed since my day. It's all a (disgusting) music industry "tradition"—"Pay For Play". (That is, paying a club owner for the privilege of performing on his stage. That's not just working for free..that's PAYING to work.)
Blues singers from 70 or 80 years ago had their intellectual property exploited by someone else, while the originators of the music got next to nothing; Little Richard took the the just-short-of-highway-robbery record deals that were offered to him early in his career. Black musicians were treated unfairly back then. Now there's less discrimination—musicians with any skin color can get ripped off equally by American Idol, and much lesser forums, media, or venues.
"Do it for the exposure" is the slogan of the exploiters in the entertainment industry. It's one of our emotional "hot buttons". "The Man" takes advantage of the creative artist's desire to express him/herself, and to be liked, and to have their work acknowledged, and to make a "living" doing what they love.
There's a slightly more dignified manner of "Pay for Play" today. They're called "bringer shows". The musicians (or comedians, for that matter) bring the audience. They ask friends, colleagues, relatives, and whoever else they can, to come to the show, and pay for drinks. Often there's no cover charge at "bringer shows". But the drinks ($5 for a small, watered down orange juice) subsidizes the comics' stage time. Getting up in front of people is the ONLY way to get better at it.
The really great performers who start out doing bringer shows didn't have to do them for long.
By college students' standards, I'm old—43 to be somewhat close to exact. And yet, Berklee has stayed the same, while progressing a whole lot. Tradition mixed with musical experimentation and creativity, along with a great sense of humor are part of what makes Berklee special. I love anything that has a sense of humor about itself—even a funeral.
Berklee's unique. It always has been, and always will be. The best way to illustrate how different and special Berklee is, would be to tell you about Christopher Guest's visit to the school. Christopher Guest was honored at Berklee with an honorary doctorate. He, along with a fantastic ensemble of Berklee faculty and students, performed arrangements and adaptions of selections from his body of music.
Over a hundred bassists accompanied Christopher for the evening's final number, Big Bottoms . "Bottom" is a musical colloquialism meaning the bass part. In musical colloquial/trade-speak, when one is "holding down the bottom", one is playing the bass (or bass guitar). If you read the lyrics , you'll see that's not what the song's about.
That one hundred bassists thing? That's unique to Berklee. It takes the "Big Bottoms" joke from the ridiculous to the absurd! The students are, on the whole, a very talented bunch. They're very dedicated, but they don't miss out on the good times.
My favorite teachers at Berklee were Ken Zambello and Bob Freedman—with a special honor going to Bill Leavitt—founding chairman of the Guitar Department. If all I'd gotten out of Berklee was my time with these three great musicians/teachers, it'd have been more than enough.
I loved Ken as a teacher because he took rock and roll seriously. He approached it intellectually and technically, and with great respect. He would dissect it, and show us—his students—that it, like every other great genre of music, was an outgrowth of other traditions/genres. Without understanding what came before, it's really hard to understand how to properly and professionally execute any given genre.
"A-Wop-bop-a-loo-bop a-lop-bam-boom!"???
What the hell was that? Well, Little Richard may have composed that lyric himself, but he didn't invent the phenomenon of singing non-lyrics. There was scat singing well before him.
Little Richard was an original. But, did he create everything he did out of thin air? No. There was Louis Jordan not too far before him. And before Louis Jordan? There was Louis Armstrong, then the blues singers, then Africa. Frankly, I know almost nothing of African music.
Little Richard, Ray Charles, and others developed their styles out of a mix of gospel, jazz, earlier popular music, and jazz. One of Billy Joel's biggest influences was Ray Charles; another great source of Billy Joel's inspiration was The Beatles. The Beatles were influenced by Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley. Elvis also loved black blues singers and gospel and took a lot out of it. Every great musician comes from some great tradition that came before they did.
I'm pretty sure the name of the first class I took with Ken was "Rock Analysis" He played Chuck Berry, Bill Haley and the Comets and Oingo Boingo. And taking their music apart, and understanding the elements of it was real work. Ken also directed an ensemble in which I was a student-musician. He had us listen to recordings of pop songs, and try to play the song as it had been played on the original, with a slight adaptation for the ensemble of the moment.
In that class he pointed out (and then we heard what we already knew was there, but didn't know it well enough to articulate it), that some of the instruments were playing straight (think the guitar, bass, and drums on Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) and the guitars, the bass, and the vocal were playing swing (think Little Richard's Tutti Frutti). The elements of jazz were coming together with a more driving, set of rhythmic elements.
Did Bill Haley know what the hell all that meant? Probably not. Doesn't make it any less serious. Some of you won't get this, but the greatest thing I learned from Ken Zambello, is that we'd better learn music as a trade, and learn in depth about the styles that have already been successful, so that we can make it in commercial music. Although he said many funny things in my classes with him, my favorite was "Nobody's going to pay to hear your 7/8 Reggae version of Take Five." In English? He told students that there's a constant struggle between art and commerce. And while one shouldn't compromise on one's art, that's not always going to pay the rent. He also told students that if we are serious about music, we have to understand it thoroughly. Listening to a record, and being able to "copy" it is part skill, and part talent. After I took Ken's classes, I listened to rock and roll with "new ears". I was able to do things after his classes that I would never have been able to do without them. I had so much more respect for rock and roll. Since he released The Stranger, Billy Joel had always been my favorite pop music composer. Billy knows rock and roll as an art form, but also understands its forms, and its inner workings. He can dissect the songs he fell in love with, and that made him love rock and roll.
When he did an album in a particular style, he understood that style completely, and gave it his particular take.
That's reality. Imagine that! Liberal Arts colleges probably have lots of "Intro to Basket Weaving" type classes, and "Analysis of the eleventh notes in Arnold Schoenberg's twelve-tone pieces". How can anyone make a living from that? Ken was (and obviously still is) aware of the realities of art and commerce. He gave it to us in exactly the doses we needed.
And so, we are able to mix tradition with experimentation to make bold new work that has a solid, grounded foundation. What does this have to do with anything important?
In the Book of Proverbs we're taught that there's "nothing new under the sun". It's really true. The computer industry hasn't had anything new in a long time. It may seem new, but it's all been done before in cruder forms. The World Wide Web may come closest to anything truly new, but it's all just a big, complicated network.
With music? Hell, no. Ken Zambello said "Stevie Wonder didn't invent the II V.". Neither did Duke Ellington. Neither did Bach.
(I had a heck of a time finding a decent link to explain the II V (pronounced two-five. The first two chords to the song "Satin Doll" (Dmin7 and G7, in the key of C), also the first two chords to "Tea for Two".)
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tradition, religion, and the future of the arts.
The great novelist and columnist Tracy Quan (whose website we designed, by the way) recently wrote in her column about atheism for The Guardian , that music is inseparable from religion. She's right. Some of the greatest music ever written was written as a form of (or an adjunct to) worship. Religion and music are both as old as the hills. Bach, Mozart, Leonard Bernstein, and many contemporary, popular recording artists have all written music expressing their love of God as they see Him.
Tracy's own one line summary of her own article on the topic was "If God is not great, why are the tunes so good?". It's an excellent question, and here's my answer.
Both music and religion have stayed alive for millenia because they each have dedicated, passionate followers, practitioners, and believers. A lot of the greatest music ever written is only hundreds of years old. Anything with that kind of staying power has to have something going for it. But "the old guard" eventually falls out of fashion with the younger generations. That's been addressed too–by both religion and music.
Religion and music (respectively) have traditionalists and modernists. The modernists give religion greater numbers, while the traditionalists give modernists something against which to rebel, and something to (in their view) update. "Fundamentalists" are typically at the far "right" end of traditionalist movements in just about every religion (, except perhaps Buddhism). The modernists look way to the "right" and think of the traditionalists as "stuck in the past", cultists, or just plain loony.
When thinking about this dichotomy (in either religion or music), I instinctively remember the stereotype of the old curmudgeon yelling in disgust about "these kids today, with the hair and the music...". These are the same (generally older) traditionalists who often start certain of the rants in their repertoire with "Back in my day..." or "In the old days"...Interestingly enough, these types of rants are common to both music traditionalists and religious traditionalists.
There are also advocates of modernity (in both religion and music). The religious modernists believe that religion must change to suit the times. They believe that along with culture shifts, and advances in technology (among other things) should come adaptation of religion to those shifts. Traditionalists believe that people should adapt their behavior to religious law, and maintain religious tradition.
That doesn't answer why the tunes are "so great". The tunes are so great because it's rarely the religious moderates who write the great religious music–that which stems from passion, rather than from the "gee, isn't our culture nice?" kind of warm, fuzzy feeling. Modernists want to change, things that are already great, don't need to change. If one views one's religion as sacred, changing it seems counter-intuitive. The intuitive action would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The modernists generally compose and/or record music that is the religious equivalent of Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of "If I Had A Hammer". It's a nice tune, but it won't rock your world, or change your life—unless you're the song's publisher. Then you'll make a coupla bucks off it, since the song is still doin' business.
Johann Sebastian Bach was not a religious modernist. He was as old school as they ever got. Back in 1705 (when Bach was 20), the old school was a lot newer. Yet, I'm sure someone thought of Bach as a rebel. He was looking to do something new in music, but he wasn't looking to change that which he felt was quite right—his religion.
Bach was the real deal. The tunes are so great because they were written by people with tremendous talent, a contemporary ear, and old-school values. Can you see changing a note of Bach's music to "suit the times"?
Mozart wrote some great music for the church, he was an amazingly talented musician. There is some debate as to Mozart's religious practice. He was a Catholic, but also a Freemason. His father had been a Jesuit. Maybe he wasn't all that devout. I'm not sure we can know, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. Many of his greatest works were commissions for the church, or for church big-wigs (back in the day when they actually wore big wigs), and it was great work. No reason to change what's already great.
My longtime-friend Jonathan Rimberg (bottom left) is one such "old school" (highly talented) musician with a modern ear. (The song to which that links is more of a Hebrew rock and roll song than of religious praise. It's very Beatles and Billy Joel-influenced.)
Jonathan, as part of Shoresh did a fabulous a capella arrangement of a beautiful Jewish hymn-like prayer, in the style of Take 6 (Check out "Family Of Love") . Great tunes have staying power is partially that they were written out of passion, and were executed by people with the talent to do justice to the music. The melody was taken from an Israeli love song from the 1967 War
Having grown up in the Orthodox community, I wasn't always objective about Jewish music. I recently got to thinking about whether the music with contemporary influences made religious purists (traditonalists) "crosses a line". I asked Jonathan about this. His response is that the line (for music) shifts with the times, even though the religious values don't change.
I find that interesting. There's a concept in Judaism of making mundane things holy by adapting them into a Jewish context. Hence we have song parodies of classic rock and roll, but with religious-themed lyrics. Oy! That's a whole 'nother discussion we've already had.
Yet despite the efforts of some religious purists with contemporary ears, there are those on the farther-right (if you can believe that), who resist the modern influences. One rabbi in New York sought to ban a concert of Jewish music at Madison Square Garden because one or more of the performers was set to perform parodies of rock and roll songs.
Although Rabbis lead the Jewish community as a whole, there is a subset of Rabbis who are specialists in applying complex parts the "old school" law to contemporary phenomena. There are, for example, rabbis whose primary gig is applying the law to medical advances. One such rabbi is the leading authority on Jewish Law's take on whether or not, and under what circumstances "brain death" constitutes death. There have been decisions in Jewish law about everything from how to make a microwave oven suitable for cooking kosher food, to sex reassignment surgery. These decisions have made for more than a little controversy and divisiveness.
Musicians, on the other hand, can often get along despite their differences in philosophy about "old school" versus "new school". There are thousands of recorded performances featuring great old-school-meets-new-school combinations. Tony Bennett and Bono is but one example. Igor Stravinsky was open to incorporating Jazz influences into his music.
Mozart collaborated with librettists on his operas. That makes him what we today would call a songwriter. Of course, he's also much more than that, but it's one of his many musical talents.
If he were alive today, he might write for both Broadway, and The Met. Broadway would pay the bills, and The Met would be his passion. Or maybe not.
Religious traditionalists often express disgust at the modernists' adaptation of religion to suit their needs, while many modernists think of the old-schoolers as being zealots, cult-members, or just plain "antiquated".
Even within the realm of symphonic music there were modernists who rebelled. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok. The great thing with all of them, is that they paid great (and due) homage the great forms that preceded them, and built their creations on a solid foundation. Bartok wrote some amazing pieces based on Hungarian folk songs. The great composers who rebelled did so with respect, and with a thorough understanding and appreciation for what came before them.
Most modernist religious practitioners today aren't like that. They want the quick, easy God-fix, or treat their church or synagogue attendance as if it were a social, or business networking opportunity. What does that have to do with the future of the arts? Plenty! More later...
Tracy's own one line summary of her own article on the topic was "If God is not great, why are the tunes so good?". It's an excellent question, and here's my answer.
Both music and religion have stayed alive for millenia because they each have dedicated, passionate followers, practitioners, and believers. A lot of the greatest music ever written is only hundreds of years old. Anything with that kind of staying power has to have something going for it. But "the old guard" eventually falls out of fashion with the younger generations. That's been addressed too–by both religion and music.
Religion and music (respectively) have traditionalists and modernists. The modernists give religion greater numbers, while the traditionalists give modernists something against which to rebel, and something to (in their view) update. "Fundamentalists" are typically at the far "right" end of traditionalist movements in just about every religion (, except perhaps Buddhism). The modernists look way to the "right" and think of the traditionalists as "stuck in the past", cultists, or just plain loony.
When thinking about this dichotomy (in either religion or music), I instinctively remember the stereotype of the old curmudgeon yelling in disgust about "these kids today, with the hair and the music...". These are the same (generally older) traditionalists who often start certain of the rants in their repertoire with "Back in my day..." or "In the old days"...Interestingly enough, these types of rants are common to both music traditionalists and religious traditionalists.
There are also advocates of modernity (in both religion and music). The religious modernists believe that religion must change to suit the times. They believe that along with culture shifts, and advances in technology (among other things) should come adaptation of religion to those shifts. Traditionalists believe that people should adapt their behavior to religious law, and maintain religious tradition.
That doesn't answer why the tunes are "so great". The tunes are so great because it's rarely the religious moderates who write the great religious music–that which stems from passion, rather than from the "gee, isn't our culture nice?" kind of warm, fuzzy feeling. Modernists want to change, things that are already great, don't need to change. If one views one's religion as sacred, changing it seems counter-intuitive. The intuitive action would be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
The modernists generally compose and/or record music that is the religious equivalent of Peter, Paul & Mary's recording of "If I Had A Hammer". It's a nice tune, but it won't rock your world, or change your life—unless you're the song's publisher. Then you'll make a coupla bucks off it, since the song is still doin' business.
Johann Sebastian Bach was not a religious modernist. He was as old school as they ever got. Back in 1705 (when Bach was 20), the old school was a lot newer. Yet, I'm sure someone thought of Bach as a rebel. He was looking to do something new in music, but he wasn't looking to change that which he felt was quite right—his religion.
Bach was the real deal. The tunes are so great because they were written by people with tremendous talent, a contemporary ear, and old-school values. Can you see changing a note of Bach's music to "suit the times"?
Mozart wrote some great music for the church, he was an amazingly talented musician. There is some debate as to Mozart's religious practice. He was a Catholic, but also a Freemason. His father had been a Jesuit. Maybe he wasn't all that devout. I'm not sure we can know, and I'm not sure it makes a difference. Many of his greatest works were commissions for the church, or for church big-wigs (back in the day when they actually wore big wigs), and it was great work. No reason to change what's already great.
My longtime-friend Jonathan Rimberg (bottom left) is one such "old school" (highly talented) musician with a modern ear. (The song to which that links is more of a Hebrew rock and roll song than of religious praise. It's very Beatles and Billy Joel-influenced.)
Jonathan, as part of Shoresh did a fabulous a capella arrangement of a beautiful Jewish hymn-like prayer, in the style of Take 6 (Check out "Family Of Love") . Great tunes have staying power is partially that they were written out of passion, and were executed by people with the talent to do justice to the music. The melody was taken from an Israeli love song from the 1967 War
Having grown up in the Orthodox community, I wasn't always objective about Jewish music. I recently got to thinking about whether the music with contemporary influences made religious purists (traditonalists) "crosses a line". I asked Jonathan about this. His response is that the line (for music) shifts with the times, even though the religious values don't change.
I find that interesting. There's a concept in Judaism of making mundane things holy by adapting them into a Jewish context. Hence we have song parodies of classic rock and roll, but with religious-themed lyrics. Oy! That's a whole 'nother discussion we've already had.
Yet despite the efforts of some religious purists with contemporary ears, there are those on the farther-right (if you can believe that), who resist the modern influences. One rabbi in New York sought to ban a concert of Jewish music at Madison Square Garden because one or more of the performers was set to perform parodies of rock and roll songs.
Although Rabbis lead the Jewish community as a whole, there is a subset of Rabbis who are specialists in applying complex parts the "old school" law to contemporary phenomena. There are, for example, rabbis whose primary gig is applying the law to medical advances. One such rabbi is the leading authority on Jewish Law's take on whether or not, and under what circumstances "brain death" constitutes death. There have been decisions in Jewish law about everything from how to make a microwave oven suitable for cooking kosher food, to sex reassignment surgery. These decisions have made for more than a little controversy and divisiveness.
Musicians, on the other hand, can often get along despite their differences in philosophy about "old school" versus "new school". There are thousands of recorded performances featuring great old-school-meets-new-school combinations. Tony Bennett and Bono is but one example. Igor Stravinsky was open to incorporating Jazz influences into his music.
Mozart collaborated with librettists on his operas. That makes him what we today would call a songwriter. Of course, he's also much more than that, but it's one of his many musical talents.
If he were alive today, he might write for both Broadway, and The Met. Broadway would pay the bills, and The Met would be his passion. Or maybe not.
Religious traditionalists often express disgust at the modernists' adaptation of religion to suit their needs, while many modernists think of the old-schoolers as being zealots, cult-members, or just plain "antiquated".
Even within the realm of symphonic music there were modernists who rebelled. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok. The great thing with all of them, is that they paid great (and due) homage the great forms that preceded them, and built their creations on a solid foundation. Bartok wrote some amazing pieces based on Hungarian folk songs. The great composers who rebelled did so with respect, and with a thorough understanding and appreciation for what came before them.
Most modernist religious practitioners today aren't like that. They want the quick, easy God-fix, or treat their church or synagogue attendance as if it were a social, or business networking opportunity. What does that have to do with the future of the arts? Plenty! More later...
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Song Parodies—Repurposed brilliance or unlicensed hackery?
[Despite the title, this post is not about musical tastes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what is funny, what isn't funny, and what is in good taste or bad taste. This is simply about music parody in the context of the music business.]
Parody has a long and interesting tradition. It has been used throughout the centuries, in many cultures, as a way to express protest, as a way to satirize some political or social phenomenon, or just as a means of amusement. Some have made a career out of it.
Allan Sherman is probably the best example of a contemporary song parodist. He was a really funny showbusiness jack-of-many trades. His credits include writing for Jackie Gleason, and producing Bill Cosby's first comedy album—Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow, Right?. He was also a very busy and successful television producer, and performer of song parodies during the 1960s.
Allan Sherman's (Sorry to have given a Wikipedia link, but this entry's pretty good, and pretty accurate.) greatness lay in several facets of his work—his song or composition choices, his comic persona, the subjects of his lyrics, and the production values are just a few reasons why Allan was such a great parodist.
The arrangements on Allan's records deserve their own blog entry. One paragraph will have to do. Lou Busch—Allan's co-conspirator in these musical pursuits—was an astounding and versatile musician. Lou's arrangements for Allan Sherman were part of the reason I wanted to be an arranger. They perfectly complemented Allan's performance, and sense of humor, and were always perfect for the song and the lyric. Busch's arrangements weren't copies of any single recording of a song—although one comes close.
Allan's biggest hit was a parody called Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah—a funny take on summer camp. Most people who knew the song parody had no idea that the original was from an 1870s opera called La Gionconda by Amilcare Ponchielli . The song (on which Hello Muddah Hello Faddah was based) is called Dance of the Hours. Allan Sherman brought us opera, and we didn't even know it. The first time I heard the original, I thought "Wow, an instrumental version of Hello Muddah Hello Faddah. It's a nice tune even without the lyrics.". His parody When I was a Lad was copped from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore.
Allan also did a very ambitious project called Peter and The Commissar a very interesting take on Peter and The Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. Sherman showed a depth and breadth of knowledge, not only about how to entertain, but about how to perform. He did not have what most would call a soothing voice. But in his comic persona, he made the performance/execution work perfectly.
Why all this fuss about Allan Sherman? Allan performed the art of parody respectably, respectfully, and very creatively. From a business perspective he did the right thing too. He paid both tribute and money to the composers of the original works (except for those works that were in the public domain). [Sometimes parodying a work that's in the public domain is a great idea, because it's royalty-free, and because it may be either well-known (a "classic"), or may be good enough to warrant /attract a new audience. Most people had (and still have) no idea who Ponchielli was, but they know his work because of Allan Sherman.
But this post really isn't about him—it's about how music parody fits into the music business. To see it in proper context, we should look at the history of music parody, music business of the past, and the music business overall.
Musical parodies go back a long way. Many American school-children are taught a song we knew as My Country, 'tis of Thee". I was shocked to have found out (as a kid) that the song was originally a British song called God Save The King. God Save The King was later adapted to God Save The Queen, after the King died. Isn't it hilarious that young American students sing a British song as tribute to the country from which America declared its independence?
Yankee Doodle—one of America's best known songs—is a song parody!
The Battle Hymn of the Republic started as a melody with a very different lyric .
Franz Josef Haydn wrote the melody for a song called Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser (God Save Franz the Emperor). Less than fifty years later, someone using different lyrics turned into the German National Anthem—Deutschland Uber Alles, which translates to "Germany Above/Before All". Many people still have very negative associations with the song because of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mel Brooks used the anthem very effectively in the original movie of The Producers, to make fun of the Nazis. But the melody by Haydn is beautiful. It's such a shame to see its parody/adaptation be held in such low regard because of its having been "repurposed".
So what does that have to do with the music business today? LOTS.
I'm not a lawyer, but we can even have some legal fun with this one.
Happy Birthday To You is just a different lyric to Good Morning, Dear Teacher (ca. 1890). Because the original composers (Mildred and Patty Hill, in case you like trivia) put different lyrics to it, and published the song again in 1935 as Happy Birthday, they revived it, and kept it out of the public domain. Their estates STILL collect money on it every time it's used in a TV show or a movie.
Put Good Morning, Dear Teacher (sans lyrics) in a movie, during a scene in which someone's bringing out a birthday cake, and you're using a song from 1890 (which is in the public domain). If the end credits of your movie list Good Morning, Dear Teacher rather than Happy Birthday To You, you could probably get away with using it for free.
Love Me Tender—one of Elvis Presley's biggest hits, started life out as a Civil War era song called Aura Lee. Sing Elvis's lyrics on the radio, and you owe someone money. Hum it (or sing the original lyrics), and you owe nothing.
There really ain't nothin' new in the world. Allan Sherman wasn't the first song parodist, and he certainly wasn't the last. Weird Al Yankovic has probably sold many more records than Allan could have. Allan's song parody career lasted perhaps twelve years. Weird Al's been around a lot longer than that, and the numbers of record buyers hit record numbers in the 1980s.
There is a HUGE number of parodists today who record others' musical works, but with lyrics different than the original. Whether or not the song makes fun of the original, or of anything, it is legally defined as a parody. Many parodists record independently, or on small labels, with "shoestring" budgets. Those who do this sidestep/conveniently forget to pay (financial) tribute to the original composers. When parodists/satirists do this, they're violating the law. There is a copyright law in every civilized country in the world, and in many less-than-civilized ones. Almost all countries with a copyright law in place require some variety of compensation/royalties be paid to the owner of a copyright when their work is used.
Weird Al, and Nutty Allan (Sherman) had something in common, though. They were both very high-profile writers and performers. They can't afford to try cheating the system. They couldn't afford to just use a composition with a then-enforceable copyright, without paying the monies mandated by the Copyright Act.
Mark Russell and The Capitol Steps are well-known political satirists and parodists. On The Capitol Steps' official website they acknowledge the original compositions they parody. One of the founding members of The Capitol Steps wrote a terrific article on the parody phenomenon. Read on, and you'll find a link.
Now we come to my big bugaboo, or bee in my bonnet. (Truth be told, I don't look very good in bonnets, but that's another story). Religious (music) groups are using popular songs that still have enforceable copyright, and are illegally using those songs to "spread the word" of their religion. This practice isn't specific to one religion. Whoever's doing it, I think it's pretty icky (that's a technical word), and horribly hypocritical to steal in the name of God.
Religious music groups who illegally sell (for profit, even if they don't make a profit) others' music with lyrics and themes very different from the original, seem to me to be quite hypocritical. In the spirit of proper disclosure, I participated in one such record in 1986. I asked the producers to obtain the necessary permissions. The copyright owners refused to grant permission, but the producers released the recording anyway.
You may wonder if music parody of copyrighted work is even legal. Well, it has always been legal, but until 1994, parodists who wanted to release a parody recording of an existing work required the permission of the copyright owner (in order to release it commercially). In 1994, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that affected music parodists in a very positive way. In Campbell v. Acuff Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision about whether or not a parodist must obtain the permission of the copyright holder before recording and releasing a parody of a copyrighted work. Before this case was decided, Elaina Newport and Bill Strauss of The Capitol Steps wrote a wonderful article about the case, and its potential ramifications.
Luther Campbell (of the rap group 2 Live Crew) wrote a parody of the classic Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. Campbell's lyrics, and his take on the song were/was very different from the original. The publisher (Acuff Rose Music) believed that 2 Live Crew version would cast the original song in a bad light, and thus make the original song less marketable.
The plaintiff contended that his parody of the Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman, while wildly different in lyrical content from the original, did not detract from the marketability of the original recording and/or composition. Campbell asserted that he should therefore be permitted to use the work without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The Sixth Circuit Court sided with Acuff Rose Music, but the US Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's finding, and agreed with Luther Campbell.
No matter how that decision would have come down, any user of copyrighted musical work is obligated to pay royalties based on a mandated statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song per record/unit manufactured. That's for compositions of less than 5 minutes in length. Many parodists who have recorded works subsequent to 1994 believe mistakenly that because of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, they're allowed to use the music scott-free. Nope, 't'ain't so. The royalties mentioned above are known as "mechanical royalties"—so named because they are calculated based on "mechanical" (now also digital) reproductions of the original works/recordings. We could get into performance royalties, but that's a whole other post.
U.S. Copyright Law takes into account the phenomenon of a "derivative work". An example of a derivative work would be an orchestral arrangement of a song by The Beatles. Sex and The City—a wildly successful HBO series, now in syndication, was turned into a movie. That's another type of derivative work.
Most parodists, however, knowingly violate the law. They create intellectual property, put a copyright statementon it, and then don't respect the original copyright holders' work. Even more nervy than that, many parodists put a copyright warning on their commercial recordings. In essence they're saying "Don't you dare steal our product. Leave the stealing to us."
They are creating derivatives from which the copyright holder of the original has a right to benefit. With small-label independent recordings the original composers do not see dime one.
Here's the saddest part of the whole independent/underground music parody theft business. When one asks the parodists why they don't pay for the music they're using, they state pretty openly that they're probably too small to get caught. If they do get caught, the publishers/copyright holders/record companies which may own the original works would have to spend too much money for too little return to bother going after them.
An addendum to the sad story is how cheap it is to use the music legally. Let's say a band makes a record of ten song parodies, and manufactures 10,000 units, for sale at $15 each. That's gross income of $150,000. To legally use the music, they'd have to pay $9100. And they just don't do it. That boggles the mind! If you had to pay $9100 to use a work that could gross $150,000, would you do it? Let's keep in mind one thing. Songs consist of two elements: music and lyrics. So, 50% of the materials used by song parodists belong to someone other than the parodist. $9100 to use 50% of the stuff you're selling, and from which you're grossing $150,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Let's put another thing out there for consideration: Song parodists who aren't registering their works with The Harry Fox Agency , and Performance Rights Organizations are depriving the songs' composers and publishers of additional revenue they might have gotten from airplay and public performances of the song parodies.
There's money to be made from singing song parodies on tour. The performer's almost never liable for performance royalties. That's the liability of the venue (almost always). But that's another discussion for another time.
If you reading this create for a living, or you know anyone who creates for a living, or are related to anyone who creates for a living, I hope you'll feel strongly enough about this issue to investigate if the parody music you might think to buy is legal. If it doesn't support the creator of the original work (without which there would never have been a derivative), don't buy it.
Be an informed consumer of intellectual property. Keep funding the artists' ability to make a living, and to continue giving us great works.
Parody has a long and interesting tradition. It has been used throughout the centuries, in many cultures, as a way to express protest, as a way to satirize some political or social phenomenon, or just as a means of amusement. Some have made a career out of it.
Allan Sherman is probably the best example of a contemporary song parodist. He was a really funny showbusiness jack-of-many trades. His credits include writing for Jackie Gleason, and producing Bill Cosby's first comedy album—Bill Cosby Is a Very Funny Fellow, Right?. He was also a very busy and successful television producer, and performer of song parodies during the 1960s.
Allan Sherman's (Sorry to have given a Wikipedia link, but this entry's pretty good, and pretty accurate.) greatness lay in several facets of his work—his song or composition choices, his comic persona, the subjects of his lyrics, and the production values are just a few reasons why Allan was such a great parodist.
The arrangements on Allan's records deserve their own blog entry. One paragraph will have to do. Lou Busch—Allan's co-conspirator in these musical pursuits—was an astounding and versatile musician. Lou's arrangements for Allan Sherman were part of the reason I wanted to be an arranger. They perfectly complemented Allan's performance, and sense of humor, and were always perfect for the song and the lyric. Busch's arrangements weren't copies of any single recording of a song—although one comes close.
Allan's biggest hit was a parody called Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah—a funny take on summer camp. Most people who knew the song parody had no idea that the original was from an 1870s opera called La Gionconda by Amilcare Ponchielli . The song (on which Hello Muddah Hello Faddah was based) is called Dance of the Hours. Allan Sherman brought us opera, and we didn't even know it. The first time I heard the original, I thought "Wow, an instrumental version of Hello Muddah Hello Faddah. It's a nice tune even without the lyrics.". His parody When I was a Lad was copped from Gilbert and Sullivan's HMS Pinafore.
Allan also did a very ambitious project called Peter and The Commissar a very interesting take on Peter and The Wolf by Sergei Prokofiev. Sherman showed a depth and breadth of knowledge, not only about how to entertain, but about how to perform. He did not have what most would call a soothing voice. But in his comic persona, he made the performance/execution work perfectly.
Why all this fuss about Allan Sherman? Allan performed the art of parody respectably, respectfully, and very creatively. From a business perspective he did the right thing too. He paid both tribute and money to the composers of the original works (except for those works that were in the public domain). [Sometimes parodying a work that's in the public domain is a great idea, because it's royalty-free, and because it may be either well-known (a "classic"), or may be good enough to warrant /attract a new audience. Most people had (and still have) no idea who Ponchielli was, but they know his work because of Allan Sherman.
But this post really isn't about him—it's about how music parody fits into the music business. To see it in proper context, we should look at the history of music parody, music business of the past, and the music business overall.
Musical parodies go back a long way. Many American school-children are taught a song we knew as My Country, 'tis of Thee". I was shocked to have found out (as a kid) that the song was originally a British song called God Save The King. God Save The King was later adapted to God Save The Queen, after the King died. Isn't it hilarious that young American students sing a British song as tribute to the country from which America declared its independence?
Yankee Doodle—one of America's best known songs—is a song parody!
The Battle Hymn of the Republic started as a melody with a very different lyric .
Franz Josef Haydn wrote the melody for a song called Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser (God Save Franz the Emperor). Less than fifty years later, someone using different lyrics turned into the German National Anthem—Deutschland Uber Alles, which translates to "Germany Above/Before All". Many people still have very negative associations with the song because of the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Mel Brooks used the anthem very effectively in the original movie of The Producers, to make fun of the Nazis. But the melody by Haydn is beautiful. It's such a shame to see its parody/adaptation be held in such low regard because of its having been "repurposed".
So what does that have to do with the music business today? LOTS.
I'm not a lawyer, but we can even have some legal fun with this one.
Happy Birthday To You is just a different lyric to Good Morning, Dear Teacher (ca. 1890). Because the original composers (Mildred and Patty Hill, in case you like trivia) put different lyrics to it, and published the song again in 1935 as Happy Birthday, they revived it, and kept it out of the public domain. Their estates STILL collect money on it every time it's used in a TV show or a movie.
Put Good Morning, Dear Teacher (sans lyrics) in a movie, during a scene in which someone's bringing out a birthday cake, and you're using a song from 1890 (which is in the public domain). If the end credits of your movie list Good Morning, Dear Teacher rather than Happy Birthday To You, you could probably get away with using it for free.
Love Me Tender—one of Elvis Presley's biggest hits, started life out as a Civil War era song called Aura Lee. Sing Elvis's lyrics on the radio, and you owe someone money. Hum it (or sing the original lyrics), and you owe nothing.
There really ain't nothin' new in the world. Allan Sherman wasn't the first song parodist, and he certainly wasn't the last. Weird Al Yankovic has probably sold many more records than Allan could have. Allan's song parody career lasted perhaps twelve years. Weird Al's been around a lot longer than that, and the numbers of record buyers hit record numbers in the 1980s.
There is a HUGE number of parodists today who record others' musical works, but with lyrics different than the original. Whether or not the song makes fun of the original, or of anything, it is legally defined as a parody. Many parodists record independently, or on small labels, with "shoestring" budgets. Those who do this sidestep/conveniently forget to pay (financial) tribute to the original composers. When parodists/satirists do this, they're violating the law. There is a copyright law in every civilized country in the world, and in many less-than-civilized ones. Almost all countries with a copyright law in place require some variety of compensation/royalties be paid to the owner of a copyright when their work is used.
Weird Al, and Nutty Allan (Sherman) had something in common, though. They were both very high-profile writers and performers. They can't afford to try cheating the system. They couldn't afford to just use a composition with a then-enforceable copyright, without paying the monies mandated by the Copyright Act.
Mark Russell and The Capitol Steps are well-known political satirists and parodists. On The Capitol Steps' official website they acknowledge the original compositions they parody. One of the founding members of The Capitol Steps wrote a terrific article on the parody phenomenon. Read on, and you'll find a link.
Now we come to my big bugaboo, or bee in my bonnet. (Truth be told, I don't look very good in bonnets, but that's another story). Religious (music) groups are using popular songs that still have enforceable copyright, and are illegally using those songs to "spread the word" of their religion. This practice isn't specific to one religion. Whoever's doing it, I think it's pretty icky (that's a technical word), and horribly hypocritical to steal in the name of God.
Religious music groups who illegally sell (for profit, even if they don't make a profit) others' music with lyrics and themes very different from the original, seem to me to be quite hypocritical. In the spirit of proper disclosure, I participated in one such record in 1986. I asked the producers to obtain the necessary permissions. The copyright owners refused to grant permission, but the producers released the recording anyway.
You may wonder if music parody of copyrighted work is even legal. Well, it has always been legal, but until 1994, parodists who wanted to release a parody recording of an existing work required the permission of the copyright owner (in order to release it commercially). In 1994, the US Supreme Court handed down a decision that affected music parodists in a very positive way. In Campbell v. Acuff Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision about whether or not a parodist must obtain the permission of the copyright holder before recording and releasing a parody of a copyrighted work. Before this case was decided, Elaina Newport and Bill Strauss of The Capitol Steps wrote a wonderful article about the case, and its potential ramifications.
Luther Campbell (of the rap group 2 Live Crew) wrote a parody of the classic Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman. Campbell's lyrics, and his take on the song were/was very different from the original. The publisher (Acuff Rose Music) believed that 2 Live Crew version would cast the original song in a bad light, and thus make the original song less marketable.
The plaintiff contended that his parody of the Roy Orbison song Oh, Pretty Woman, while wildly different in lyrical content from the original, did not detract from the marketability of the original recording and/or composition. Campbell asserted that he should therefore be permitted to use the work without having to obtain permission from the copyright holder. The Sixth Circuit Court sided with Acuff Rose Music, but the US Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's finding, and agreed with Luther Campbell.
No matter how that decision would have come down, any user of copyrighted musical work is obligated to pay royalties based on a mandated statutory rate of 9.1 cents per song per record/unit manufactured. That's for compositions of less than 5 minutes in length. Many parodists who have recorded works subsequent to 1994 believe mistakenly that because of Campbell v. Acuff Rose, they're allowed to use the music scott-free. Nope, 't'ain't so. The royalties mentioned above are known as "mechanical royalties"—so named because they are calculated based on "mechanical" (now also digital) reproductions of the original works/recordings. We could get into performance royalties, but that's a whole other post.
U.S. Copyright Law takes into account the phenomenon of a "derivative work". An example of a derivative work would be an orchestral arrangement of a song by The Beatles. Sex and The City—a wildly successful HBO series, now in syndication, was turned into a movie. That's another type of derivative work.
Most parodists, however, knowingly violate the law. They create intellectual property, put a copyright statementon it, and then don't respect the original copyright holders' work. Even more nervy than that, many parodists put a copyright warning on their commercial recordings. In essence they're saying "Don't you dare steal our product. Leave the stealing to us."
They are creating derivatives from which the copyright holder of the original has a right to benefit. With small-label independent recordings the original composers do not see dime one.
Here's the saddest part of the whole independent/underground music parody theft business. When one asks the parodists why they don't pay for the music they're using, they state pretty openly that they're probably too small to get caught. If they do get caught, the publishers/copyright holders/record companies which may own the original works would have to spend too much money for too little return to bother going after them.
An addendum to the sad story is how cheap it is to use the music legally. Let's say a band makes a record of ten song parodies, and manufactures 10,000 units, for sale at $15 each. That's gross income of $150,000. To legally use the music, they'd have to pay $9100. And they just don't do it. That boggles the mind! If you had to pay $9100 to use a work that could gross $150,000, would you do it? Let's keep in mind one thing. Songs consist of two elements: music and lyrics. So, 50% of the materials used by song parodists belong to someone other than the parodist. $9100 to use 50% of the stuff you're selling, and from which you're grossing $150,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Let's put another thing out there for consideration: Song parodists who aren't registering their works with The Harry Fox Agency , and Performance Rights Organizations are depriving the songs' composers and publishers of additional revenue they might have gotten from airplay and public performances of the song parodies.
There's money to be made from singing song parodies on tour. The performer's almost never liable for performance royalties. That's the liability of the venue (almost always). But that's another discussion for another time.
If you reading this create for a living, or you know anyone who creates for a living, or are related to anyone who creates for a living, I hope you'll feel strongly enough about this issue to investigate if the parody music you might think to buy is legal. If it doesn't support the creator of the original work (without which there would never have been a derivative), don't buy it.
Be an informed consumer of intellectual property. Keep funding the artists' ability to make a living, and to continue giving us great works.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Repurposing—Annuities for creative people.
Those of you who put food on the table by doing what you
love are, for the most part either underemployed
or underpaid. Those whose souls you nourish
value your work. Most of those who feel revitalized
after hearing your music, seeing your movie,
reading your book, or even just cruising your blog,
wouldn't mind paying for the privilege. But, for
most of you, getting paid for that work is a one shot deal.
Whoever is employing you wants to get rid of you
quickly. They want to make a profit, and be done
with paying off the talent. That accounts for
why advertising agencies are pretty well done
with paying residuals for musicians who write,
produce, and perform on radio and television
commercials. Those at the top of the showbusiness heap can
demand compliance to union regulations about residuals, or can
work only with those for whom compliance to union regulations is
par for the course. This isn't a rant about union organizing, though.
That one will come later.
For now, let's discuss finding a way to make money off your stuff once the initial purchaser of your talents/works has taken their slice. Did you sign away your copyrights? Your publishing rights? Let's hope not.
Could you, as George Harrison and Bob Dylan have, put out a book of the lyrics to your songs, with the special added value of commentary by the composer? Maybe. If you're famous, people will buy it. If you're a screenwriter, can you adapt your movie for the stage? If you're an author, can you serialize your novel on the web? Or, maybe you can work the other way around. Maybe you can, as Tracy Quan did, serialize your novel on the web first, gain a following and/or a buzz, and score a book. From the book, Tracy scored two more books, and a TV show based on the book/series of books. Pretty good, ay?
How about all the comedy talk shows on TV? Jay Leno did a book of dumb headlines (and ads, and other stuff that appears in print). Some were featured on the "Headlines" segment he does on The Tonight Show, others were "added value"—headlines that hadn't been on the show. David Letterman has had several books of "Top Ten Lists". During the recent WGA Strike, "lateshowwritersonstrike.com" published some original Top 10 Lists, but they weren't all that funny (on purpose).
Bill Maher's HBO show—Real Time with Bill Maher—has a segment called "New Rules". There's a "New Rules" book. George Carlin took some of his most famous routines, and put them in his Braindroppings books. Those books were big sellers too.
Most of these examples contain original content along with the repurposed content. Added value is what sells them. Various licensees of The Beatles recordings have found some really silly ways to capitalize on The Beatles' music. Someone found recordings of them before they sounded very polished, and put that out. Others put out "Greatest Hits" compilations. Many people have done "cover" albums—interpretations of The Beatles' music. My favorite of these was the title track of a Bing Crosby album: Hey Jude, Hey Bing.
Of course, one of my favorites, Jonathan Katz has found a great way to repurpose content. He has used bits of his standup act, and bits from projects that may or may not have launched in his current (internet radio) series "HEY, WE'RE BACK". He used pieces of his standup in his hit animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist. Just as significantly, he gave dozens of standup comedians the opportunity to repurpose their material, bringing it to a television audience who may never have seen the comics' faces before.
Bill Cosby had one of the most popular TV series of all time, based on his 1982 movie Bill Cosby, Himself.
Mildred and Patty S. Hill wrote Good Morning, Dear Teacher in 1890. You're not familiar with the song? Maybe you've heard of it in its repurposed form—Happy Birthday To You. Millie and Patty changed four words in 1935, copyrighted it with the new name, and their estates are still taking in millions of dollars from a song that's 117 years old.
But, the moral of the story is that good work can take many forms, and sell in more than one. And if not, maybe the first form in which your work is distributed is not the one that will "hit".
My best friend Lisa Liel—a historian—repurposed in an extraordinary way. She took a long out-of-print interpretation of the Book of Esther, and added some commentary to it. Her work was second edition of the book. The estate of the original author's work is pleased as punch, even though the original's in the Public Domain now.
How many forms has your work taken? Can you think of other forms into which your work will translate easily? Have you done something out of the norm with your musical composition, screenplay, poem, blog, or other intellectual property? I'd love to know about it.
Drop me a line.
love are, for the most part either underemployed
or underpaid. Those whose souls you nourish
value your work. Most of those who feel revitalized
after hearing your music, seeing your movie,
reading your book, or even just cruising your blog,
wouldn't mind paying for the privilege. But, for
most of you, getting paid for that work is a one shot deal.
Whoever is employing you wants to get rid of you
quickly. They want to make a profit, and be done
with paying off the talent. That accounts for
why advertising agencies are pretty well done
with paying residuals for musicians who write,
produce, and perform on radio and television
commercials. Those at the top of the showbusiness heap can
demand compliance to union regulations about residuals, or can
work only with those for whom compliance to union regulations is
par for the course. This isn't a rant about union organizing, though.
That one will come later.
For now, let's discuss finding a way to make money off your stuff once the initial purchaser of your talents/works has taken their slice. Did you sign away your copyrights? Your publishing rights? Let's hope not.
Could you, as George Harrison and Bob Dylan have, put out a book of the lyrics to your songs, with the special added value of commentary by the composer? Maybe. If you're famous, people will buy it. If you're a screenwriter, can you adapt your movie for the stage? If you're an author, can you serialize your novel on the web? Or, maybe you can work the other way around. Maybe you can, as Tracy Quan did, serialize your novel on the web first, gain a following and/or a buzz, and score a book. From the book, Tracy scored two more books, and a TV show based on the book/series of books. Pretty good, ay?
How about all the comedy talk shows on TV? Jay Leno did a book of dumb headlines (and ads, and other stuff that appears in print). Some were featured on the "Headlines" segment he does on The Tonight Show, others were "added value"—headlines that hadn't been on the show. David Letterman has had several books of "Top Ten Lists". During the recent WGA Strike, "lateshowwritersonstrike.com" published some original Top 10 Lists, but they weren't all that funny (on purpose).
Bill Maher's HBO show—Real Time with Bill Maher—has a segment called "New Rules". There's a "New Rules" book. George Carlin took some of his most famous routines, and put them in his Braindroppings books. Those books were big sellers too.
Most of these examples contain original content along with the repurposed content. Added value is what sells them. Various licensees of The Beatles recordings have found some really silly ways to capitalize on The Beatles' music. Someone found recordings of them before they sounded very polished, and put that out. Others put out "Greatest Hits" compilations. Many people have done "cover" albums—interpretations of The Beatles' music. My favorite of these was the title track of a Bing Crosby album: Hey Jude, Hey Bing.
Of course, one of my favorites, Jonathan Katz has found a great way to repurpose content. He has used bits of his standup act, and bits from projects that may or may not have launched in his current (internet radio) series "HEY, WE'RE BACK". He used pieces of his standup in his hit animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist. Just as significantly, he gave dozens of standup comedians the opportunity to repurpose their material, bringing it to a television audience who may never have seen the comics' faces before.
Bill Cosby had one of the most popular TV series of all time, based on his 1982 movie Bill Cosby, Himself.
Mildred and Patty S. Hill wrote Good Morning, Dear Teacher in 1890. You're not familiar with the song? Maybe you've heard of it in its repurposed form—Happy Birthday To You. Millie and Patty changed four words in 1935, copyrighted it with the new name, and their estates are still taking in millions of dollars from a song that's 117 years old.
But, the moral of the story is that good work can take many forms, and sell in more than one. And if not, maybe the first form in which your work is distributed is not the one that will "hit".
My best friend Lisa Liel—a historian—repurposed in an extraordinary way. She took a long out-of-print interpretation of the Book of Esther, and added some commentary to it. Her work was second edition of the book. The estate of the original author's work is pleased as punch, even though the original's in the Public Domain now.
How many forms has your work taken? Can you think of other forms into which your work will translate easily? Have you done something out of the norm with your musical composition, screenplay, poem, blog, or other intellectual property? I'd love to know about it.
Drop me a line.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Surprise-surprise! Government was slow to respond to a gaping hole!
Once again, the U.S. government waited to get involved in a crisis till the damage was overdone.
Gee, I wonder where we've heard that before. Hmm..Hurricane Katrina, maybe? 9/11, perhaps? Let's take a stroll down memory lane to World War II. Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, having begun to kill Jews in 1938. The U.S. got involved in 1941. Okay, that was almost 70 years ago, and everyone who wasn't white and Christian was invisible in the U.S.. Doesn't make it forgiveable, it just states the facts of the times.
Gee, I wonder where we've heard that before. Hmm..Hurricane Katrina, maybe? 9/11, perhaps? Let's take a stroll down memory lane to World War II. Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, having begun to kill Jews in 1938. The U.S. got involved in 1941. Okay, that was almost 70 years ago, and everyone who wasn't white and Christian was invisible in the U.S.. Doesn't make it forgiveable, it just states the facts of the times.
Today, members of the U.S. Congress wrote a letter to Bob Iger (CEO of Disney) and Peter Chernin (CEO of Fox), urging them to negotiate in good faith with the writers because of all the money that's been lost. Real smart, guys.
The writers went through Thanksgiving and Christmas on strike, because no one in a position of power told big business what to do. Until now! Pilot season could have been saved, and we could have been a little further into the season of Boston Legal and Desperate Housewives. My friends at Swingline Productions could be creating new episodes of Law and Order Criminal Intent.
Let's review. When big business tried to crush the writers by stonewalling them, our government said nothing. Nobody in government had the foresight to see (or the guts to speak out about the fact that) that billions would be lost; that the American people, and people in many other countries would lose out on great content in film and television, because the creatives who help make it happen asked for what was just, appropriate, and in keeping with tradition.
The Republican Governor of California—also a former movie actor—could have veered from the typical anti-union, pro big-business agenda, and spoken out. Wouldn't that have been something? It wouldn't surprise me if another former actor and ex-governor of California would have kept his mouth shut on the issue. Ronald Reagan—star of Bedtime for Bonzo—was a Democrat-turned-Republican.
Republicans are said to be "pro-business". One would think that every entrepreneur should, by virtue of that "pro-business" agenda, be a Republican. But that "pro-business" hype is a lot like many things in the Republican platform—reminiscent of the warning label "Objects in mirror may be larger than they appear.". The Republicans are pro-business when the businesses are big enough to be substantial campaign contributors. To them, "pro-business" means anti-union.
Ronald Reagan, who busted the air traffic controllers union in 1981, had a Washington, D.C. airport named for him. It gets worse. He was a former president of the Screen Actors Guild. The irony is saddening. The one good thing about him is that he knew how to tell a joke. I find it quite funny that it was during his presidency that the comedy club boom started. The great comedian Richard Belzer attributed the boom (in part) to Reagan's presidency. Comedians had such good fodder for material by 1982 that the comedy clubs just started popping up. Every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.
Republicans supposedly feel that government shouldn't get in the way of business, and should let the market dictate who succeeds and who fails. Let's review. Many writers in New York and Hollywood own production companies. These companies are small businesses, producing scripts for big corporations like GE (NBC), Disney (ABC Television, and more media than you can shake a stick at), and Sony (CBS). So, when it's small business against big business, I guess the size of the contributor determines which side the Republicans take. Fun, huh?
The writers went through Thanksgiving and Christmas on strike, because no one in a position of power told big business what to do. Until now! Pilot season could have been saved, and we could have been a little further into the season of Boston Legal and Desperate Housewives. My friends at Swingline Productions could be creating new episodes of Law and Order Criminal Intent.
Let's review. When big business tried to crush the writers by stonewalling them, our government said nothing. Nobody in government had the foresight to see (or the guts to speak out about the fact that) that billions would be lost; that the American people, and people in many other countries would lose out on great content in film and television, because the creatives who help make it happen asked for what was just, appropriate, and in keeping with tradition.
The Republican Governor of California—also a former movie actor—could have veered from the typical anti-union, pro big-business agenda, and spoken out. Wouldn't that have been something? It wouldn't surprise me if another former actor and ex-governor of California would have kept his mouth shut on the issue. Ronald Reagan—star of Bedtime for Bonzo—was a Democrat-turned-Republican.
Republicans are said to be "pro-business". One would think that every entrepreneur should, by virtue of that "pro-business" agenda, be a Republican. But that "pro-business" hype is a lot like many things in the Republican platform—reminiscent of the warning label "Objects in mirror may be larger than they appear.". The Republicans are pro-business when the businesses are big enough to be substantial campaign contributors. To them, "pro-business" means anti-union.
Ronald Reagan, who busted the air traffic controllers union in 1981, had a Washington, D.C. airport named for him. It gets worse. He was a former president of the Screen Actors Guild. The irony is saddening. The one good thing about him is that he knew how to tell a joke. I find it quite funny that it was during his presidency that the comedy club boom started. The great comedian Richard Belzer attributed the boom (in part) to Reagan's presidency. Comedians had such good fodder for material by 1982 that the comedy clubs just started popping up. Every cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.
Republicans supposedly feel that government shouldn't get in the way of business, and should let the market dictate who succeeds and who fails. Let's review. Many writers in New York and Hollywood own production companies. These companies are small businesses, producing scripts for big corporations like GE (NBC), Disney (ABC Television, and more media than you can shake a stick at), and Sony (CBS). So, when it's small business against big business, I guess the size of the contributor determines which side the Republicans take. Fun, huh?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
A History of Silly Lawsuits (Brought to you by the Entertainment Industry)
So the RIAA is really at it this time.
I don't blame them, on the one hand. Their constituency is the record companies. People are pirating records—STEALING! Some are doing it for fun,. others are doing it for profit. But the RIAA, and the MPAA have shown, time-after-time, that they don't understand the difference between letting the music get out there to cultivate the fan base (many of whom who will eventually buy the record anyway), and people genuinely stealing it, so that they can avoid paying for it. In the early '80s, during the advent of home video/VCRs, the MPAA was certain that home taping, and the new form of piracy now available to any TV watcher, would be the death of the movie industry. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Speaking of "Wrong", stealing is wrong! We know this. But prosecuting students, little old ladies, and others who not only don't have the means to pay outrageous fines, but who can easily play the "victim" card..that's just bad. They can't catch the travelling show that is most "services" that provide a conduit to illegally uploaded files. Not only do these services make it easy for people to download copyrighted material, but many of these "services" lead downloaders to viruses and other nasties that don't belong on anyone's computer.
When George Harrison was sued for copyright infringement / plagiarism, didn't the entire music community just...get a chuckle? George was a prolific, enormously talented composer. He knew the song ("He's So Fine"), acknowledged he knew the song at the time he wrote "My Sweet Lord". Did he steal it? I couldn't see how or why he'd want to. Do they share pitch and rhythm sequences in key parts of the respective songs? Yep. Could George have come up with that on his own? Definitely. Did "He's So Fine" pervade his consciousness enough to come out in one of his own compositions? Sure. Should he have had to pay for that? I don't think so. Doesn't matter. A judge ruled in favor of Bright Music (who owned the copyright to He's So Fine).
I view it as a subconscious version of Variations on a Theme. Many composers have purposely taken an existing melody (their own, or someone else's), and have written entire new compositions based on the original. What Harrison did could, at worst, be similar to a variations on a theme.
But he was a good sport and made an offer to settle the claim of infrigement/plagiarism. Of course, as in all things "big business", it got more complicated than George writing a check.
Intellectual property is an astoundingly important concept. Because we can claim copyright, we allow the great creators among us to be motivated and create new things for the world to enjoy. Intellectual property must be protected, but it must be protected intelligently. Publishers aren't as interested in the work as they are in the revenue that the property generates. Song pimps help the creative people to make a living. But to the publishers, one "girl"'s as good as the next—if they both make money. The "girls" who make the big money are generally treated better, and are defended more vigorously. Exploitation of intellectual property is fine. It's part of commerce, and hopefully, helps the composer, author, visual artist, or whoever, to sustain themselves, and to continue creating new works.
And so, the ridiculous lawsuits continue. More on them later. This post is very old and late.
I don't blame them, on the one hand. Their constituency is the record companies. People are pirating records—STEALING! Some are doing it for fun,. others are doing it for profit. But the RIAA, and the MPAA have shown, time-after-time, that they don't understand the difference between letting the music get out there to cultivate the fan base (many of whom who will eventually buy the record anyway), and people genuinely stealing it, so that they can avoid paying for it. In the early '80s, during the advent of home video/VCRs, the MPAA was certain that home taping, and the new form of piracy now available to any TV watcher, would be the death of the movie industry. They couldn't have been more wrong.
Speaking of "Wrong", stealing is wrong! We know this. But prosecuting students, little old ladies, and others who not only don't have the means to pay outrageous fines, but who can easily play the "victim" card..that's just bad. They can't catch the travelling show that is most "services" that provide a conduit to illegally uploaded files. Not only do these services make it easy for people to download copyrighted material, but many of these "services" lead downloaders to viruses and other nasties that don't belong on anyone's computer.
When George Harrison was sued for copyright infringement / plagiarism, didn't the entire music community just...get a chuckle? George was a prolific, enormously talented composer. He knew the song ("He's So Fine"), acknowledged he knew the song at the time he wrote "My Sweet Lord". Did he steal it? I couldn't see how or why he'd want to. Do they share pitch and rhythm sequences in key parts of the respective songs? Yep. Could George have come up with that on his own? Definitely. Did "He's So Fine" pervade his consciousness enough to come out in one of his own compositions? Sure. Should he have had to pay for that? I don't think so. Doesn't matter. A judge ruled in favor of Bright Music (who owned the copyright to He's So Fine).
I view it as a subconscious version of Variations on a Theme. Many composers have purposely taken an existing melody (their own, or someone else's), and have written entire new compositions based on the original. What Harrison did could, at worst, be similar to a variations on a theme.
But he was a good sport and made an offer to settle the claim of infrigement/plagiarism. Of course, as in all things "big business", it got more complicated than George writing a check.
Intellectual property is an astoundingly important concept. Because we can claim copyright, we allow the great creators among us to be motivated and create new things for the world to enjoy. Intellectual property must be protected, but it must be protected intelligently. Publishers aren't as interested in the work as they are in the revenue that the property generates. Song pimps help the creative people to make a living. But to the publishers, one "girl"'s as good as the next—if they both make money. The "girls" who make the big money are generally treated better, and are defended more vigorously. Exploitation of intellectual property is fine. It's part of commerce, and hopefully, helps the composer, author, visual artist, or whoever, to sustain themselves, and to continue creating new works.
And so, the ridiculous lawsuits continue. More on them later. This post is very old and late.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Keeping the (Strike) Iron Hot:
Technology Tips for the Writers Guild to create /
maintain public awareness during the strike
Dear Writers:
I wholeheartedly support your cause, and would like to help.
In the first days of the strike, you chanted “1, 2, 3, 4, we just want to write some more.5, 6, 7, 8, Why won’t you negotiate?”.
Clever? Perhaps. On Message? Definitely! Effective? Maybe (at best).
Your job is to put words on paper. Getting those words out to the public isn’t your specialty–nor should it be. In fact, the people against whom the writers are striking are the ones with the Mega-megaphones that reach around the world. (I won't bother linking to them.)
As such, I am not surprised that the writers’ message isn’t getting out as much as it could be. Isn’t it ironic that the primary reason for the strike is that the studios and production companies aren’t willing to better compensate you for internet broadcasts of your work, and that you aren’t ALL using that astoundingly powerful (and practically free) medium to better broadcast your message?
(Wasn't that a hell of a long sentence just now?)
Not only is the internet likely to be the primary broadcast medium in the near future, but it’s going to continue to be a much more versatile means of getting a message out than television is. As many of you know, ANYONE can broadcast on the internet.
Now, about getting the word out:
The Writers Guild of America website (wga.org) offers some news, but...how does the average person know to go there?
For rates ranging from zero to 1/25th of a penny, the Writers Guild (and each of you)
could be sending e-mail newsletters to “push” your message out to te public,
draw them to the Guild’s website, and to other information sources.
“Opt-In” Newsletters have been a very effective way to PULL traffic in by PUSHing a message out.
For zero dollars, the writers you could include links to YouTube videos, and Picasa picture galleries inside those e-mail newsletters.You could link to the amazing content on sites like
The Late Night Writers On Strike site, YouTube, and Deadline Hollywood Daily.
Vertical Response gives an opportunity for those without a lot of money, but with a great cause, to get the word out. Vertical Response will also let you send a wide variety of mailings, get great reporting/statistics on how many people have seen, or opened your message, and allows you to really organize your lists effectively.
For zero dollars, you could EACH be creating a blog, displaying the kinds of writing talent that’s laying fallow. Blogs which mention The Writers Guild, the strike, or anything else related to your cause increase their visibility on the web in general, and on Google specifically.
The Guild held a rally on November 23rd. It was terrific. I had to go to the Writers Guild website to find out there had even been a rally. I went to YouTube, and sure enough, there were video excerpts from it.
How about raising money for the strike fund?
Paypal is a great conduit for contributions to the WGA strike fund! It’d allow anyone
who’s so inclined to contribute to the strike fund. Your blogs, newsletters, and links wherever you can get them, will bring in visibility and money!
There is a FANTASTIC site that David Letterman’s writers put together. It’s full of GREAT, original videos and writing, that’ll keep us HANKERING to see that great writing talent back on TV. In fact, seeing their fantastic work online may give the Letterman audience a whole new perspective on what they could expect from Letterman’s show.
Someone with the pseudonym WriterBoi created a Hip Hop Anthem for the strike.
Holly Hunter did a fabulous short called “Speechless”.
It clearly demonstrates what happens without the Writers Guild membership.
But we had to go SEARCHING for it. Publicizing something that fantastic is EASY.
You’re writers, and you’re doing a fantastic job putting together original content that gets the word out. But the word’s not going far enough! Since the studios aren’t distributing your content on TV and in movies, do it yourselves.
Some of you are doing it already. Do it more. It’s easy. All it takes is a webcam, free software, and an internet connection.
PetitionOnline.com can get your word out to
the masses, and demonstrate a show of support. (There’s already one petition to the studios, add another, or get signatures for the one that’s up there.)...Include a link to it in your blog, your newsletter.
Take your webcam and a laptop to the picket line. Most Apple notebooks of the past 3 or 4 years have built-in webcams. Stream events live! Lord knows that significantly less important things are being streamed live on the web. Some cell phones can even function as webcams.
If you want to communicate the numbers, to those who don’t understand how little the
writers want for their contribution, putting a little gadget on the website that multiplies the number of
streams/users by the pennies the writers are asking for, versus the studio’s income from those same streams might be an effective tool.
Striking blue collar workers have the same tools available that you do, but you, the writers have an astounding talent that can complement the medium so well. Demonstrate further how your talent can still be a powerful force without the networks.
My thoughts are with you.
maintain public awareness during the strike
Dear Writers:
I wholeheartedly support your cause, and would like to help.
In the first days of the strike, you chanted “1, 2, 3, 4, we just want to write some more.5, 6, 7, 8, Why won’t you negotiate?”.
Clever? Perhaps. On Message? Definitely! Effective? Maybe (at best).
Your job is to put words on paper. Getting those words out to the public isn’t your specialty–nor should it be. In fact, the people against whom the writers are striking are the ones with the Mega-megaphones that reach around the world. (I won't bother linking to them.)
As such, I am not surprised that the writers’ message isn’t getting out as much as it could be. Isn’t it ironic that the primary reason for the strike is that the studios and production companies aren’t willing to better compensate you for internet broadcasts of your work, and that you aren’t ALL using that astoundingly powerful (and practically free) medium to better broadcast your message?
(Wasn't that a hell of a long sentence just now?)
Not only is the internet likely to be the primary broadcast medium in the near future, but it’s going to continue to be a much more versatile means of getting a message out than television is. As many of you know, ANYONE can broadcast on the internet.
Now, about getting the word out:
The Writers Guild of America website (wga.org) offers some news, but...how does the average person know to go there?
For rates ranging from zero to 1/25th of a penny, the Writers Guild (and each of you)
could be sending e-mail newsletters to “push” your message out to te public,
draw them to the Guild’s website, and to other information sources.
“Opt-In” Newsletters have been a very effective way to PULL traffic in by PUSHing a message out.
For zero dollars, the writers you could include links to YouTube videos, and Picasa picture galleries inside those e-mail newsletters.You could link to the amazing content on sites like
The Late Night Writers On Strike site, YouTube, and Deadline Hollywood Daily.
Vertical Response gives an opportunity for those without a lot of money, but with a great cause, to get the word out. Vertical Response will also let you send a wide variety of mailings, get great reporting/statistics on how many people have seen, or opened your message, and allows you to really organize your lists effectively.
For zero dollars, you could EACH be creating a blog, displaying the kinds of writing talent that’s laying fallow. Blogs which mention The Writers Guild, the strike, or anything else related to your cause increase their visibility on the web in general, and on Google specifically.
The Guild held a rally on November 23rd. It was terrific. I had to go to the Writers Guild website to find out there had even been a rally. I went to YouTube, and sure enough, there were video excerpts from it.
How about raising money for the strike fund?
Paypal is a great conduit for contributions to the WGA strike fund! It’d allow anyone
who’s so inclined to contribute to the strike fund. Your blogs, newsletters, and links wherever you can get them, will bring in visibility and money!
There is a FANTASTIC site that David Letterman’s writers put together. It’s full of GREAT, original videos and writing, that’ll keep us HANKERING to see that great writing talent back on TV. In fact, seeing their fantastic work online may give the Letterman audience a whole new perspective on what they could expect from Letterman’s show.
Someone with the pseudonym WriterBoi created a Hip Hop Anthem for the strike.
Holly Hunter did a fabulous short called “Speechless”.
It clearly demonstrates what happens without the Writers Guild membership.
But we had to go SEARCHING for it. Publicizing something that fantastic is EASY.
You’re writers, and you’re doing a fantastic job putting together original content that gets the word out. But the word’s not going far enough! Since the studios aren’t distributing your content on TV and in movies, do it yourselves.
Some of you are doing it already. Do it more. It’s easy. All it takes is a webcam, free software, and an internet connection.
PetitionOnline.com can get your word out to
the masses, and demonstrate a show of support. (There’s already one petition to the studios, add another, or get signatures for the one that’s up there.)...Include a link to it in your blog, your newsletter.
Take your webcam and a laptop to the picket line. Most Apple notebooks of the past 3 or 4 years have built-in webcams. Stream events live! Lord knows that significantly less important things are being streamed live on the web. Some cell phones can even function as webcams.
If you want to communicate the numbers, to those who don’t understand how little the
writers want for their contribution, putting a little gadget on the website that multiplies the number of
streams/users by the pennies the writers are asking for, versus the studio’s income from those same streams might be an effective tool.
Striking blue collar workers have the same tools available that you do, but you, the writers have an astounding talent that can complement the medium so well. Demonstrate further how your talent can still be a powerful force without the networks.
My thoughts are with you.
Friday, November 23, 2007
STRIKE: Showbiz shows unity with the Writers Guild of America!
STRIKE!
The Writers Guild strike: The creative arts business is among the stranger ones in the world. Musicians, writers, and actors who went from labor to management in some aspect of "the business" can also be employees. In the world of society music/party music, a musician can be an employer (band leader) one day, and an employee for someone else the next. Such a musician may be a pianist who works weddings to pay the bills, but also has a jazz trio which doesn't have great commercial appeal. Perhaps a few nights a month, such a musician would prefer to accept less money, not take an engagement for a wedding, but rather, do something that fulfills his/her artistic need to play music that matters to them, rather than entertaining an audience of semi-drunk, less appreciative people who are really there for something other than the music.
On that same note, most people who are showrunners in Hollywood were once staff writers somewhere. Most of them are still sensitive, creative people who feel for the writers, and believe the cause to be a worthy one. Essentially, you have management striking against other management.
But with this strike, the whole "management striking against other management" thing goes up a notch. Garry Marshall and Norman Lear came out for the writers! Norman Lear created All In The Family—perhaps the greatest sitcom of all time. He created and was the driving force behind MANY other sitcoms. He is a Hollywood giant. Once upon a time he was a staff writer for television shows too. He feels for the writers. That's one of the many things that makes showbusiness so amazing. Norman Lear is, by his actions, telling Rupert Murdoch that he (Murdoch) has no idea what it's like to put words in actors' mouths, be paid a pittance, get none of the credit, and be treated like dirt in comparison to the cast of the show. Without the writers, the cast would be nothing. Norman knows it at least as well as anyone else in Hollywood, and he's in a position of tremendous power. And yet HE comes out to support the writers. That's awesome.
Garry Marshall once wrote for The Dick Van Dyke Show. He conceived and directed episodes of Happy Days. He is now a major player in Hollywood also. He also directed many huge hit movies. Garry Marshall and Norman Lear bonded in support of the writers, and came out to one of the rallies. Now THAT is a show of unity.
On a Garry Marshall note, right after Robin Williams got famous for his role on Mork and Mindy, he would perform standup comedy for little or no money in "hole in the wall" clubs in California and elsewhere. He would frequently get calls from the audience asking for "Mork". He would respond to those calls by saying "No, no....Not doin' the Mork. That's why I come out here..to do something DIFFERENT." That would get tremendous applause from the audience.
Why are the writers striking? Without the writers there are no TV shows, no movies..in
fact, not much of anything in commercial programming, really. Much of television production has come to a standstill in the past few weeks; movie production at the major studios is down to less than nothing; and all because the writers want a small taste of digital media sales of their intellectual property. The studios are losing millions right now, with no production going on.
And yet, late night TV show hosts SUPPORT THE WRITERS. Jay Leno, Conan O' Brien, and David Letterman were/are all writers. They understand and sympathize with the writers' demands for compensation. Leno and Letterman are contributing to the writers' strike funds, and are doing their part to ensuring the writers don't starve during the strike.
Jimmy Kimmel hosted a major awards show, and did so (semi) unscripted because he wasn't allowed to write for it. Jimmy is a member of the Writers Guild, and takes that membership seriously. Part of his job is to be funny, and look good on television. He chose to risk embarrassing himself in front of a huge audience rather than break the WGA strike. Because he's a professional, he was able to make the evening somewhat funny, but there were many presenters who couldn't do much more than read the names of the nominees, and subsequently read the winner's name.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart requires fresh takes on the day's news (most) every Monday through Thursday. Jon's a very funny man, but there's no way he could possibly write every joke in 4 monologues a week, AND bits they do within the show, AND prepare properly for interviews with his guests. It's just not possible.
So what happens? The Daily Show is in reruns now. This will be the 4th week of reruns. When the strike's over, Viacom will require a major marketing campaign just to tell the regular viewers that there'll be new episodes on the air. Advertising dollars, production costs, and so many other things contribute to major losses. I'm guessing the studios might be willing to give up a small taste of digital media sales, and acknowledge the writers' contribution to their multi-gazillion dollar industry, and put an end to everyone's losses.
Many famous actors have come out for the writers. The writers are doing a great job of conveying their message too. They send effective messages about both the reasoning behind their stance, and their feelings about the offers being put forth by the studios/producers. The actors know they'd be nowhere without great writing. Ray Romano (also a standup comic and writer), Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Rachel Griffiths, Elliot Gould, Rob Lowe and Kathy Griffin.
Even a few famous musicians came out to support the writers.
So where's government in all this? How will government affect the future of the internet? Some candidates clearly don't get it, or are in the pockets of media conglomerates. Others, like John Edwards, not only get it, but will advocate for those who need it.
John and Elizabeth Edwards just cancelled an upcoming appearance on The View because he wanted to support the writers, and wouldn't cross a picket line. YAY, John!
So what does all this mean? The top of the Hollywood food chain doesn't want to give up 4 cents of internet back-end profits to the people who write the scripts which make everything in Hollywood move. Many people in positions of power support the writers. And yet, the strike's in its 4th week. There is one longer writers strike on record, from 1988. Most writers in Hollywood don't make much money. If their work product is the backbone of Hollywood, those at the top of the food chain ought to consider for a moment what happens when the writers think of themselves and their families, and tearfully put aside their craft, just to figure out how make a living wage.
Smarten Up, Conglomeratis! You have more than enough money to give the writers what they need.
My thoughts are with you great creative people.
The Writers Guild strike: The creative arts business is among the stranger ones in the world. Musicians, writers, and actors who went from labor to management in some aspect of "the business" can also be employees. In the world of society music/party music, a musician can be an employer (band leader) one day, and an employee for someone else the next. Such a musician may be a pianist who works weddings to pay the bills, but also has a jazz trio which doesn't have great commercial appeal. Perhaps a few nights a month, such a musician would prefer to accept less money, not take an engagement for a wedding, but rather, do something that fulfills his/her artistic need to play music that matters to them, rather than entertaining an audience of semi-drunk, less appreciative people who are really there for something other than the music.
On that same note, most people who are showrunners in Hollywood were once staff writers somewhere. Most of them are still sensitive, creative people who feel for the writers, and believe the cause to be a worthy one. Essentially, you have management striking against other management.
But with this strike, the whole "management striking against other management" thing goes up a notch. Garry Marshall and Norman Lear came out for the writers! Norman Lear created All In The Family—perhaps the greatest sitcom of all time. He created and was the driving force behind MANY other sitcoms. He is a Hollywood giant. Once upon a time he was a staff writer for television shows too. He feels for the writers. That's one of the many things that makes showbusiness so amazing. Norman Lear is, by his actions, telling Rupert Murdoch that he (Murdoch) has no idea what it's like to put words in actors' mouths, be paid a pittance, get none of the credit, and be treated like dirt in comparison to the cast of the show. Without the writers, the cast would be nothing. Norman knows it at least as well as anyone else in Hollywood, and he's in a position of tremendous power. And yet HE comes out to support the writers. That's awesome.
Garry Marshall once wrote for The Dick Van Dyke Show. He conceived and directed episodes of Happy Days. He is now a major player in Hollywood also. He also directed many huge hit movies. Garry Marshall and Norman Lear bonded in support of the writers, and came out to one of the rallies. Now THAT is a show of unity.
On a Garry Marshall note, right after Robin Williams got famous for his role on Mork and Mindy, he would perform standup comedy for little or no money in "hole in the wall" clubs in California and elsewhere. He would frequently get calls from the audience asking for "Mork". He would respond to those calls by saying "No, no....Not doin' the Mork. That's why I come out here..to do something DIFFERENT." That would get tremendous applause from the audience.
Why are the writers striking? Without the writers there are no TV shows, no movies..in
fact, not much of anything in commercial programming, really. Much of television production has come to a standstill in the past few weeks; movie production at the major studios is down to less than nothing; and all because the writers want a small taste of digital media sales of their intellectual property. The studios are losing millions right now, with no production going on.And yet, late night TV show hosts SUPPORT THE WRITERS. Jay Leno, Conan O' Brien, and David Letterman were/are all writers. They understand and sympathize with the writers' demands for compensation. Leno and Letterman are contributing to the writers' strike funds, and are doing their part to ensuring the writers don't starve during the strike.
Jimmy Kimmel hosted a major awards show, and did so (semi) unscripted because he wasn't allowed to write for it. Jimmy is a member of the Writers Guild, and takes that membership seriously. Part of his job is to be funny, and look good on television. He chose to risk embarrassing himself in front of a huge audience rather than break the WGA strike. Because he's a professional, he was able to make the evening somewhat funny, but there were many presenters who couldn't do much more than read the names of the nominees, and subsequently read the winner's name.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart requires fresh takes on the day's news (most) every Monday through Thursday. Jon's a very funny man, but there's no way he could possibly write every joke in 4 monologues a week, AND bits they do within the show, AND prepare properly for interviews with his guests. It's just not possible.
So what happens? The Daily Show is in reruns now. This will be the 4th week of reruns. When the strike's over, Viacom will require a major marketing campaign just to tell the regular viewers that there'll be new episodes on the air. Advertising dollars, production costs, and so many other things contribute to major losses. I'm guessing the studios might be willing to give up a small taste of digital media sales, and acknowledge the writers' contribution to their multi-gazillion dollar industry, and put an end to everyone's losses.
Many famous actors have come out for the writers. The writers are doing a great job of conveying their message too. They send effective messages about both the reasoning behind their stance, and their feelings about the offers being put forth by the studios/producers. The actors know they'd be nowhere without great writing. Ray Romano (also a standup comic and writer), Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Rachel Griffiths, Elliot Gould, Rob Lowe and Kathy Griffin.
Even a few famous musicians came out to support the writers.
So where's government in all this? How will government affect the future of the internet? Some candidates clearly don't get it, or are in the pockets of media conglomerates. Others, like John Edwards, not only get it, but will advocate for those who need it.
John and Elizabeth Edwards just cancelled an upcoming appearance on The View because he wanted to support the writers, and wouldn't cross a picket line. YAY, John!
So what does all this mean? The top of the Hollywood food chain doesn't want to give up 4 cents of internet back-end profits to the people who write the scripts which make everything in Hollywood move. Many people in positions of power support the writers. And yet, the strike's in its 4th week. There is one longer writers strike on record, from 1988. Most writers in Hollywood don't make much money. If their work product is the backbone of Hollywood, those at the top of the food chain ought to consider for a moment what happens when the writers think of themselves and their families, and tearfully put aside their craft, just to figure out how make a living wage.
Smarten Up, Conglomeratis! You have more than enough money to give the writers what they need.
My thoughts are with you great creative people.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Major Record Labels, Darwinism, and the Future of Intellectual Property
It's been over a month since my last post here. However, nothing has changed, and everything has changed in the world(s) of major purveyors of intellectual property. And with the Writers Guild on strike, it makes ya think (okay, it makes me think) about the whole intellectual property landscape, and how physical media are overvalued.
The short version: Intellectual Property is about what's in the mind(s) of its originator(s)! So many are concerned these days with the media on which the darn things are sold. The physical forms by which some entrepreneurs choose to sell intellectual property are but one means of capitalizing on it. Even those who focus on the digital transmission of music, lyrics, screenplays, and whatever else, are often myopic in their view.
Sorry, I'm full of big words and complex sentence structures today.
Let's review what's gone on in the past 6 weeks or so.
How about these for starters?
- Myopia has little to do with your personal collection of hallucinogens. (Okay, that was an awful pun). There are many ways in which someone who could have profited from the above-mentioned events, chose to lose money, because they had tunnel-vision about how they sell intellectual property, and/or how the profits should be divided.
- Profit centers change. Some are so stuck to the old models /their old ideas about how to make money, and/or what makes money, that they eschew change, in favor of their "old faithful". This is nothing new.
Blacksmiths aren't making quite as good a living these days as they did before cars were commercially available. Those who loved being blacksmiths, and learned their trade weren't about to give it up. They probably had to focus on different audiences. That's one way to stay in business.
When VCRs first came out, the MPAA was against them. They said that home taping and viewing would mean the end of movies and movie theaters. You tell me: How are movies doing today? :) G'ahead...tell me. Say it. They're making a dollar or two, aren't they? And DVD sales? Not bad, ay? The studios know where the money is. That leads to the next point...and the next post.
The short version: Intellectual Property is about what's in the mind(s) of its originator(s)! So many are concerned these days with the media on which the darn things are sold. The physical forms by which some entrepreneurs choose to sell intellectual property are but one means of capitalizing on it. Even those who focus on the digital transmission of music, lyrics, screenplays, and whatever else, are often myopic in their view.
Sorry, I'm full of big words and complex sentence structures today.
Let's review what's gone on in the past 6 weeks or so.
- Radiohead has released their current album without the backing of a record company. They've made some money, and are sufficiently tired of the record companies' b.s
., that they've decided to sell their album directly, and to make it available via their website for download (or purchase of physical media). That's pretty impressive. What's even more radical about Radiohead's move is that they are charging on a "pay what you wish" scale. When a friend first told me about it, I didn't believe it, so I downloaded it for free. I'm not a Radiohead fan, but I'm sure a fan of their marketing tactics. - The RIAA sued an individual for file-sharing/downloading music illegally. They were probably mistaken in going after the one they sued. No one could prove that the alleged file-sharer was even the one who did the deed. But before we get into the analysis of this event, let's continue with the next one.
- Madonna has signed a $120 million record deal. The deal is not with a major record company, but rather, with Live Nation—a concert promoter and ticket sales outfit. She walked away from Warner Brothers, when they wouldn't "step up" with a viable offer. Warner was the first major label to sign her.
- The Writers Guild of America is on strike right now. The only issue they have with movie and television studios is back end profits on digital media sales. Everyone there is being somewhat forward-thinking in their understanding that there's real money in selling and broadcasting over the internet.
How about these for starters?
- Myopia has little to do with your personal collection of hallucinogens. (Okay, that was an awful pun). There are many ways in which someone who could have profited from the above-mentioned events, chose to lose money, because they had tunnel-vision about how they sell intellectual property, and/or how the profits should be divided.
- Profit centers change. Some are so stuck to the old models /their old ideas about how to make money, and/or what makes money, that they eschew change, in favor of their "old faithful". This is nothing new.
Blacksmiths aren't making quite as good a living these days as they did before cars were commercially available. Those who loved being blacksmiths, and learned their trade weren't about to give it up. They probably had to focus on different audiences. That's one way to stay in business.
When VCRs first came out, the MPAA was against them. They said that home taping and viewing would mean the end of movies and movie theaters. You tell me: How are movies doing today? :) G'ahead...tell me. Say it. They're making a dollar or two, aren't they? And DVD sales? Not bad, ay? The studios know where the money is. That leads to the next point...and the next post.
Friday, October 12, 2007
For most of us, "Record Deals" aren't much of a deal at all!
This one's for you musicians out there! I was reading today's edition of Billboard online, and saw the most wonderful thing—a side-by-side summary of the Pop chart, the "Digital/Mobile" chart, and the "Heatseekers/Independent" chart! WOW!!! Even if advertisers dominate major entertainment industry publications, the "little guy" now has great potential for exposure. Twenty years ago that could NEVER have happened.
Case Study: Ingrid Michaelson
This week's #1 record (on Billboard's Independent chart) is by an artist named Ingrid Michaelson. I just got a small taste of it, and she can count me in as a new fan. We music fans now have a chance to learn about new music not put out by the consolidated major labels. All the really good music has a shot now.
You may ask: "Dana, how is all this possible?"...I said "You may ask"...So go ahead, ask. I'm waiting!....Okay, fine....I've asked for you.
The internet has been the greatest revolution for independent musicians since the phonograph! It is also helping independent authors and filmmakers to get an audience without "the majors" in their respective industries. Not only is Ingrid Michaelson's record listed, but also a bio, song list, a link to her website, and links to buy her music!!!!
You may now ask: "Dana, how do we get in on this goldmine?"...Now that you see how the "You may ask.." game is played, go ahead...Ask!
If you're an independent recording musician, you probably just want to write, or play, or make records, without having to mail a CD to a fan in Omaha who's just bought it from your website.
Ingrid, and thousands of independent musicians like her get it. They have signed up with fulfillment services like CD Baby , and their records are on iTunes.
(Note: Many artists want iTunes to sell their music. iTunes screens very carefully for submissions. They are, in effect, a record label, but they've been very fair in compensating the artists whose music they sell.)
Some indep
endent musicians "Self produce". They use what resources they have available to make a record, and put out the best product they can. That might mean a basement studio, cover art by the bassist w
ho is a graphic designer by day (till the band makes it), a nice duplication facility and printing shop like Lulu.com or VistaPrint respectively, and maybe borrowing a few bucks from Mom, Dad, or your stock portfolio. If you don't have the million dollar studio available to you, don't complain. Some of the greatest records of all time (including one referenced toward the bottom of this blog entry) were made with a 4 track tape recorder.
Many truly independent record labels serve niche markets, just like in the '60s. However, today these labels can produce high quality records for a relatively low budget; they can publicize in ways we were only dreaming of twenty years ago; and they can reach a worldwide audience for a fraction of a penny per new fan.
Once again..You may ask:
So what's so great about the majors?
They're rakin' in the dough, so they must be doin' somethin' right.
Major record labels, movie studios, and publishing companies all offer the same things to the artists they sign: publicity, distribution, and the kinds of resources that allow the artist to create, unhampered by minutiae. The prospect of having to promote the record on a "micro" level is frightening to an artist who's been signed to a major label. The record company will be setting up publicity tours that get to thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people at once. You can't be selling "onesy-twosey", or you'll lose money-money. (Not the song, just the moolah). Not that art is about commerce, mind you, but you do have to make a living, or you won't be able to keep a band together.
The majors take a huge cut of the artist's profits, they often find some way to steal (all or part of) the artist's publishing income, cashing in on the artist's desire to be heard by millions rather than by tens of thousands, and they negotiate most "first time" deals paying the artist a pittance. They also tell the artists stupid things like "We want hits!". Something tells me the artists already know that.
In short, the major labels and big publishing companies are the sadistic dominatrixes of the record industry. Sadistic Dominatrixes can be perfectly lovely, but their bent is to be in charge taking what they want and need. If you happen to get something out of it, bully for you! The nice dominatrixes are the ones who work with you, and fulfill a mutually beneficial fantasy..unless they're getting paid. If they're pros, they'll work toward only what you want, but will make it seem like they're in charge, because that's part of the customer's fantasy. The customer may say "Beat me, Mistress...Oh, yes..harder..now down a little to the left..Yes, that's it. Thank You, Mistress". Guess who's really in charge there.
That was a nice diversion, wasn't it? Most entertainment industry blogs don't venture (however briefly) into adult entertainment, do they?
Two Stories from which we can learn
Hello, Dolly!
Dolly Parton recounted how Elvis Presley wanted to record I Will Always Love You in 1973 or 1974. She got the call from Colonel Tom Parker—Elvis's manager. Colonel Tom told Dolly good news and bad news. The good news was Elvis LOVED the song, and wanted to record it. The bad news was that Elvis only recorded songs to which he owned half the publishing rights. Dolly politely declined Elvis's offer. In my estimation Dolly did the smart thing. She pointed out that Elvis recorded songs to which he owned half the publishing rights, which is why most of his songs are junk. (Dolly used a less polite word than "junk" to describe Elvis's catalog).
And look how BIG she won by having refused to give up her publishing! In 1992, The Bodyguard featured I Will Always Love You as its love theme. Whitney Houston performed it for the soundtr
ack of the movie, it was HUGE hit for Whitney. The song was nominated for an Oscar. And now, every American Idol wannabe who performs the song on TV is a cash cow for Dolly. Every time The Bodyguard is on HBO, and every time a 13 year old hackette (not as in Buddy Hackette (sic)) , thinking she's the next Beyoncé, gets on TV auditioning for the reality shows, the song makes money for Dolly and her publishing company! Yay, Dolly!
EMI got The Beatles for a song
The Beatles' first record deal with EMI in 1963 paid them (The Beatles) a pittance. The contract's term was from their 1963 releases With The Beatles (in the UK) and Meet The Beatles (in the US), until 1966.
In 1966, they were the biggest band in the world. To paraphrase the great comedian a
nd author Jonathan Katz (best known for his groundbreaking animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, and his new hit radio show HEY WE'RE BACK!): To say The Beatles had a strong negotiating position in 1966, would be like saying that The Shining was a movie about writer's block.
In their second agreement with EMI, The Beatles had a much better record deal. Subsequent to 1966, they were compensated in pounds (or dollars, if you wish) per-record sold, and not shillings (or pennies for us Americans). But you have to be that big to make that happen with a company the size of EMI.
And the d
eal was even sweeter for The Beatles. Not only was their publishing left intact, but they'd decided to stop touring. September 1966 was their last live show (except for the performance on the rooftop featured in their movie/record Let It Be. I'm not aware of any musician working today who is so popular that they don't have to perform live to promote their records. From 1967 to 1970, The Beatles were a "studio band". And their first creation after having quit touring? Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
So what's the bottom line in all this? YOU CAN DO IT! Go make a record! Use the resources available to the independent musician. You may not have the big money Dolly Parton does. But keep workin' at it like this woman on the right is. The resources are MUCH easier to get to today than they were 20 years ago. Talent, ambition, and drive will take you a lot further than they used to. If you'd like to consider us as one of your trusted resources, write to me. I'd love to see if we can help you.
Case Study: Ingrid Michaelson
This week's #1 record (on Billboard's Independent chart) is by an artist named Ingrid Michaelson. I just got a small taste of it, and she can count me in as a new fan. We music fans now have a chance to learn about new music not put out by the consolidated major labels. All the really good music has a shot now.
You may ask: "Dana, how is all this possible?"...I said "You may ask"...So go ahead, ask. I'm waiting!....Okay, fine....I've asked for you.
The internet has been the greatest revolution for independent musicians since the phonograph! It is also helping independent authors and filmmakers to get an audience without "the majors" in their respective industries. Not only is Ingrid Michaelson's record listed, but also a bio, song list, a link to her website, and links to buy her music!!!!
You may now ask: "Dana, how do we get in on this goldmine?"...Now that you see how the "You may ask.." game is played, go ahead...Ask!If you're an independent recording musician, you probably just want to write, or play, or make records, without having to mail a CD to a fan in Omaha who's just bought it from your website.
Ingrid, and thousands of independent musicians like her get it. They have signed up with fulfillment services like CD Baby , and their records are on iTunes.
(Note: Many artists want iTunes to sell their music. iTunes screens very carefully for submissions. They are, in effect, a record label, but they've been very fair in compensating the artists whose music they sell.)
Some indep
endent musicians "Self produce". They use what resources they have available to make a record, and put out the best product they can. That might mean a basement studio, cover art by the bassist w
ho is a graphic designer by day (till the band makes it), a nice duplication facility and printing shop like Lulu.com or VistaPrint respectively, and maybe borrowing a few bucks from Mom, Dad, or your stock portfolio. If you don't have the million dollar studio available to you, don't complain. Some of the greatest records of all time (including one referenced toward the bottom of this blog entry) were made with a 4 track tape recorder.Many truly independent record labels serve niche markets, just like in the '60s. However, today these labels can produce high quality records for a relatively low budget; they can publicize in ways we were only dreaming of twenty years ago; and they can reach a worldwide audience for a fraction of a penny per new fan.
Once again..You may ask:
So what's so great about the majors?
They're rakin' in the dough, so they must be doin' somethin' right.
Major record labels, movie studios, and publishing companies all offer the same things to the artists they sign: publicity, distribution, and the kinds of resources that allow the artist to create, unhampered by minutiae. The prospect of having to promote the record on a "micro" level is frightening to an artist who's been signed to a major label. The record company will be setting up publicity tours that get to thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people at once. You can't be selling "onesy-twosey", or you'll lose money-money. (Not the song, just the moolah). Not that art is about commerce, mind you, but you do have to make a living, or you won't be able to keep a band together.
The majors take a huge cut of the artist's profits, they often find some way to steal (all or part of) the artist's publishing income, cashing in on the artist's desire to be heard by millions rather than by tens of thousands, and they negotiate most "first time" deals paying the artist a pittance. They also tell the artists stupid things like "We want hits!". Something tells me the artists already know that.
In short, the major labels and big publishing companies are the sadistic dominatrixes of the record industry. Sadistic Dominatrixes can be perfectly lovely, but their bent is to be in charge taking what they want and need. If you happen to get something out of it, bully for you! The nice dominatrixes are the ones who work with you, and fulfill a mutually beneficial fantasy..unless they're getting paid. If they're pros, they'll work toward only what you want, but will make it seem like they're in charge, because that's part of the customer's fantasy. The customer may say "Beat me, Mistress...Oh, yes..harder..now down a little to the left..Yes, that's it. Thank You, Mistress". Guess who's really in charge there.
That was a nice diversion, wasn't it? Most entertainment industry blogs don't venture (however briefly) into adult entertainment, do they?
Two Stories from which we can learn
Hello, Dolly!
Dolly Parton recounted how Elvis Presley wanted to record I Will Always Love You in 1973 or 1974. She got the call from Colonel Tom Parker—Elvis's manager. Colonel Tom told Dolly good news and bad news. The good news was Elvis LOVED the song, and wanted to record it. The bad news was that Elvis only recorded songs to which he owned half the publishing rights. Dolly politely declined Elvis's offer. In my estimation Dolly did the smart thing. She pointed out that Elvis recorded songs to which he owned half the publishing rights, which is why most of his songs are junk. (Dolly used a less polite word than "junk" to describe Elvis's catalog).
And look how BIG she won by having refused to give up her publishing! In 1992, The Bodyguard featured I Will Always Love You as its love theme. Whitney Houston performed it for the soundtr
ack of the movie, it was HUGE hit for Whitney. The song was nominated for an Oscar. And now, every American Idol wannabe who performs the song on TV is a cash cow for Dolly. Every time The Bodyguard is on HBO, and every time a 13 year old hackette (not as in Buddy Hackette (sic)) , thinking she's the next Beyoncé, gets on TV auditioning for the reality shows, the song makes money for Dolly and her publishing company! Yay, Dolly!EMI got The Beatles for a song
The Beatles' first record deal with EMI in 1963 paid them (The Beatles) a pittance. The contract's term was from their 1963 releases With The Beatles (in the UK) and Meet The Beatles (in the US), until 1966.
In 1966, they were the biggest band in the world. To paraphrase the great comedian a
nd author Jonathan Katz (best known for his groundbreaking animated series Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist, and his new hit radio show HEY WE'RE BACK!): To say The Beatles had a strong negotiating position in 1966, would be like saying that The Shining was a movie about writer's block.In their second agreement with EMI, The Beatles had a much better record deal. Subsequent to 1966, they were compensated in pounds (or dollars, if you wish) per-record sold, and not shillings (or pennies for us Americans). But you have to be that big to make that happen with a company the size of EMI.
And the d
eal was even sweeter for The Beatles. Not only was their publishing left intact, but they'd decided to stop touring. September 1966 was their last live show (except for the performance on the rooftop featured in their movie/record Let It Be. I'm not aware of any musician working today who is so popular that they don't have to perform live to promote their records. From 1967 to 1970, The Beatles were a "studio band". And their first creation after having quit touring? Seargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
So what's the bottom line in all this? YOU CAN DO IT! Go make a record! Use the resources available to the independent musician. You may not have the big money Dolly Parton does. But keep workin' at it like this woman on the right is. The resources are MUCH easier to get to today than they were 20 years ago. Talent, ambition, and drive will take you a lot further than they used to. If you'd like to consider us as one of your trusted resources, write to me. I'd love to see if we can help you.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Helpin' you get to the gig.
So...some people "space", and some get to the gig. Different people work best with different tools to help them fulfill their obligations and appointments.
Among the many things that'll keep us on track are:
These puppies usually have a rolodex, calendar, "to-do" list, e-mail, and many other handy-dandy features.
The Palm Treo
Palm has been developing handheld devices for over 15 years. They've gotten quite good at it, and have a versatile line of products. The Treo—Palm's Smartphone—probably has the most
gadgety feel to it (of all the Palm products). It offers e-mail, web access, a rolodex, a calendar, and a to-do-lis. Many models have a (still and video) camera built in. The Treo has hundreds of optional features (many of them free). You can, if you wish have a Navigation system (for getting walking or driving directions to and from anywhere) for your Treo. You can turn it into a portable music-player, get an online restaurant guide for whatever town you're in, and many other things.
The Treo is far from the only player in the handheld game.
Apple has developed the much-hyped iPhone. The iPhone (pictured to the left, fin
gers not included) has all the features that most Treos have, and it includes Apple's iPod technology built right in. The iPod is widely considered to be the best portable music (and video) player available. So, those who really want their tunes with their personal organizing tool, might like the iPhone better than the Treo. The screen is quite clear, and there are many built-in features. Since it's new, there aren't quite as many "add-on" products for the iPhone yet. But you can bet the
y'll be out soon.
For those who care mostly about e-mail, there's Research In Motion's Blackberry.
There are many more handheld devices, but..you get the idea.
The little toys aren't the only answer. Maybe you just want your phone to be a phone. Okay. No problem. For you we have...
Contact Management Software
If you prefer to be at your computer to plan your day, and prefer to carry a list of what you're doing that day, there are many solutions for you. The most popular of these is known as contact management software or Contact Relationship Management software, if you care to use the industry term.
It'll keep track of your "rolodex", calendar, to-do list, and hopefully, a history of every "contact" you've had with clients, prospects, vendors, or your great aunt Tilly, if you wish.
If you wish to take your CRM on the road, most of them synchronize withSmartphones.
There are SO many examples of CRM tools, that we'd do a disservice to any one product by naming only a few here. We have our favorites, and help folks using PCs, Macs, or..nothing in particular to select the one that's best for them.
HERE is a key point, though, with selecting a CRM tool. If you are responsible for getting someone to wherever they have to be, but aren't necessarily in the same office as them, you should make sure you're using the same tool they are. We have been to MANY offices where the boss likes one calendar software, and the personal assistant who's new, uses the one that came with her computer. (Again, we won't name names. Contact me if you have questions.
We'll skip e-mail reminders and text messages for now. Let's explore a low-tech option.
Wake Up Call Services
Maybe you're a low tech person, and have enough devices in your life. Fair enough! Think about using a wake-up call service. They do MORE than 5 AM calls. They can be notified to call you 5 times a day if you need it, and the wake up call times can vary every day if you wish. Some have automated voicemail greetings/reminders, and others have actual humans ring you up.
Not sure how to go about setting it all up? Give us a call, send me a note.
Among the many things that'll keep us on track are:
- Smartphones
- Contact Management Software
- E-mail reminders and text messages
- "Wake up call" services
These puppies usually have a rolodex, calendar, "to-do" list, e-mail, and many other handy-dandy features.
The Palm Treo
Palm has been developing handheld devices for over 15 years. They've gotten quite good at it, and have a versatile line of products. The Treo—Palm's Smartphone—probably has the most
gadgety feel to it (of all the Palm products). It offers e-mail, web access, a rolodex, a calendar, and a to-do-lis. Many models have a (still and video) camera built in. The Treo has hundreds of optional features (many of them free). You can, if you wish have a Navigation system (for getting walking or driving directions to and from anywhere) for your Treo. You can turn it into a portable music-player, get an online restaurant guide for whatever town you're in, and many other things.The Treo is far from the only player in the handheld game.
Apple has developed the much-hyped iPhone. The iPhone (pictured to the left, fin
gers not included) has all the features that most Treos have, and it includes Apple's iPod technology built right in. The iPod is widely considered to be the best portable music (and video) player available. So, those who really want their tunes with their personal organizing tool, might like the iPhone better than the Treo. The screen is quite clear, and there are many built-in features. Since it's new, there aren't quite as many "add-on" products for the iPhone yet. But you can bet the
y'll be out soon.For those who care mostly about e-mail, there's Research In Motion's Blackberry.
There are many more handheld devices, but..you get the idea.
The little toys aren't the only answer. Maybe you just want your phone to be a phone. Okay. No problem. For you we have...
Contact Management Software
If you prefer to be at your computer to plan your day, and prefer to carry a list of what you're doing that day, there are many solutions for you. The most popular of these is known as contact management software or Contact Relationship Management software, if you care to use the industry term.
It'll keep track of your "rolodex", calendar, to-do list, and hopefully, a history of every "contact" you've had with clients, prospects, vendors, or your great aunt Tilly, if you wish.
If you wish to take your CRM on the road, most of them synchronize withSmartphones.
There are SO many examples of CRM tools, that we'd do a disservice to any one product by naming only a few here. We have our favorites, and help folks using PCs, Macs, or..nothing in particular to select the one that's best for them.
HERE is a key point, though, with selecting a CRM tool. If you are responsible for getting someone to wherever they have to be, but aren't necessarily in the same office as them, you should make sure you're using the same tool they are. We have been to MANY offices where the boss likes one calendar software, and the personal assistant who's new, uses the one that came with her computer. (Again, we won't name names. Contact me if you have questions.
We'll skip e-mail reminders and text messages for now. Let's explore a low-tech option.
Wake Up Call Services
Maybe you're a low tech person, and have enough devices in your life. Fair enough! Think about using a wake-up call service. They do MORE than 5 AM calls. They can be notified to call you 5 times a day if you need it, and the wake up call times can vary every day if you wish. Some have automated voicemail greetings/reminders, and others have actual humans ring you up.
Not sure how to go about setting it all up? Give us a call, send me a note.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Space—The Final Excuse...
Today I recalled a few of the stories performing artists have told me over the years about "getting to the gig".
My favorite, and
the saddest of them is the following: Years ago, I was on a recording session with legendary guitarist Eric Gale. Eric told me one of his "Dude, I Spaced" stories...though in his story, he was a beneficiary of that too-often used sub-excuse.
A well-known jazz composer and bandleader (whom we won't name here), was contracted to play a concert tour in Japan. He was travelling with a rhythm section (that's guitar, keyboards, bass, and drums), and some horns (saxophones, trombones, trumpets, perhaps). When the bandleader arrived in Japan, he hooked up with all but one of the band members. The guitarist he'd originally hired hadn't shown up. The bandleader called the guitarist's home in New York, to find that the guitarist was not only still at home, but was high on cocaine. He had forgotten to go to Japan! Eric was called in at the last minute, went to Japan, and saved the tour.
Imagine you're responsible for hauling all the equipment necessary for your employees to do their time-sensitive job, you take a left on the highway instead of a right, wind up 60 miles off course, and two hours late. Chances are that someone (besides you) will be slightly annoyed at this "turn" of events.
It's safe to assume that most people who have made it to the higher echelons of showbusiness, have earned their status, in part, because they made it to "the gig" a large majority of the time. Whether it was a 6AM call on a movie set, a deadline for a manuscript, or a 4PM bar-mitzvah, the successful people generally do what it takes to ensure they are there to do their thing when their audience expects them to be there.
Woody Allen taught us that "90% of life is just showing up".
Comedian Barry Sobel told us one of the many differences between New York and L.A.. He said that "In New York, when you tell your friend 'I'll meet you at the movie theater at 10 o' clock', you meet them at the theater at 10 o' clock!'...In L.A., they might not show up at all! The next morning, you call them up, and they say 'Dude! I spaced!'...'Dude, I spaced' is an excuse in
L.A.!!".
Well, clearly the "Dude, I spaced!" people aren't ones we'd expect to see starring in a Broadway show, or playing concerts at arenas around the world. Typically, those who are successful show up on time, and rarely (if ever) "space".
Most of us are just hard-working people. If we have to go to Japan (or perhaps to downtown Kansas City) for work, we wouldn't be likely to forget that. In this day of so many things competing for our attention—advertisements everywhere, e-mail, podcasts, children, work deadlines, and...just the many distractions of day-to-day life in the "age of technology"—it's conceivable that even we might "space" on some important obligation or other. We might not forget to go to Japan, but..something that's time-sensitive might escape our attention once in a while.
How do we reduce the chances of missing an appointment, then?
There is an abundance of tools available to us today that will do everything from beep and buzz in our hands at a pre-set time, send us e-mail reminders well in advance of our appointments, pop up on our computer screens, and maybe even come to our door, ring our bell, and escort us out to whatever the "gig" of the moment is.
In the next post, we'll explore some of those options. Stay tuned. Write to me if you have questions.
My favorite, and
the saddest of them is the following: Years ago, I was on a recording session with legendary guitarist Eric Gale. Eric told me one of his "Dude, I Spaced" stories...though in his story, he was a beneficiary of that too-often used sub-excuse.A well-known jazz composer and bandleader (whom we won't name here), was contracted to play a concert tour in Japan. He was travelling with a rhythm section (that's guitar, keyboards, bass, and drums), and some horns (saxophones, trombones, trumpets, perhaps). When the bandleader arrived in Japan, he hooked up with all but one of the band members. The guitarist he'd originally hired hadn't shown up. The bandleader called the guitarist's home in New York, to find that the guitarist was not only still at home, but was high on cocaine. He had forgotten to go to Japan! Eric was called in at the last minute, went to Japan, and saved the tour.
Imagine you're responsible for hauling all the equipment necessary for your employees to do their time-sensitive job, you take a left on the highway instead of a right, wind up 60 miles off course, and two hours late. Chances are that someone (besides you) will be slightly annoyed at this "turn" of events.
It's safe to assume that most people who have made it to the higher echelons of showbusiness, have earned their status, in part, because they made it to "the gig" a large majority of the time. Whether it was a 6AM call on a movie set, a deadline for a manuscript, or a 4PM bar-mitzvah, the successful people generally do what it takes to ensure they are there to do their thing when their audience expects them to be there.
Woody Allen taught us that "90% of life is just showing up".
Comedian Barry Sobel told us one of the many differences between New York and L.A.. He said that "In New York, when you tell your friend 'I'll meet you at the movie theater at 10 o' clock', you meet them at the theater at 10 o' clock!'...In L.A., they might not show up at all! The next morning, you call them up, and they say 'Dude! I spaced!'...'Dude, I spaced' is an excuse in
L.A.!!".Well, clearly the "Dude, I spaced!" people aren't ones we'd expect to see starring in a Broadway show, or playing concerts at arenas around the world. Typically, those who are successful show up on time, and rarely (if ever) "space".
Most of us are just hard-working people. If we have to go to Japan (or perhaps to downtown Kansas City) for work, we wouldn't be likely to forget that. In this day of so many things competing for our attention—advertisements everywhere, e-mail, podcasts, children, work deadlines, and...just the many distractions of day-to-day life in the "age of technology"—it's conceivable that even we might "space" on some important obligation or other. We might not forget to go to Japan, but..something that's time-sensitive might escape our attention once in a while.
How do we reduce the chances of missing an appointment, then?
There is an abundance of tools available to us today that will do everything from beep and buzz in our hands at a pre-set time, send us e-mail reminders well in advance of our appointments, pop up on our computer screens, and maybe even come to our door, ring our bell, and escort us out to whatever the "gig" of the moment is.
In the next post, we'll explore some of those options. Stay tuned. Write to me if you have questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
