LiveArtful

Grammy's = BS

2011-01-16T15:14:00.003-07:00

With the Grammy's coming up in a few weeks, I have to weigh in with my thoughts on it all. And in a world where things are being shortened, from 140-character tweets to text messaging concatenations like "bff", I've got to do some shortening of my own that makes total sense...in the context of the "music business" remove the middle 6 letters from "business" and you get "bs". That's what the music business is. BS.

The Grammy's are not about "good music". The Grammy's are about good "music business". There's a world of difference between the two. Measuring music by how much it sells makes about as much sense as measuring the quality of food by it's sales. I don't think any of us would consider the Big Mac the best hamburger in the world. But based only on sales, not taste, it'd be the champ. So why do we use this kind of "popular" label as a measure of the quality of music? Lady Gaga is like the Big Mac. It may sell well, but it doesn't mean it's the "best".

This doesn't mean that "best selling" and "popular" music don't have a place in our society. They obviously do. But let's be honest about it all. Best selling does not mean best.

So what truly is the best in terms of music? There's no such thing. It doesn't matter. Best for me is not best for you. And that's the beauty of music. Music is not a competition. There should never be an Olympic sport in the various genres of music. Why does music need this thing called the Grammy's? How does competition fit into this? It doesn't. And, that should shed some light on exactly why the Grammy's are about "music business" not "music".

I've had a very successful music career. One of the interesting side notes along the way was a band audition for a record contract with a record company executive in Nashville. We were an acoustic band, so we actually took our instruments into this record exec's office and auditioned playing in front of him as he sat at his desk, with two Grammy's sitting behind him on the shelf.

We played 5 songs, then stopped to get the verdict. What he said will always stay with me. "I can totally see you guys on my record label." We thought we'd won. But then the "business" side of the "music business" kicked in. His next question? "When you play out locally here in town (Nashville), how many people show up?" We responded with the number 500. He said, "Call me back when it gets to 700."

Really? The music is good enough, but the economics aren't there? Yep. Not a bad business decision, I have to admit. He knew where his break even point was in terms of an audience that was ready to buy a product he put on the market. He knew good music business. He also knew good music. But the two don't always jive.

Again, that's okay. Let's not confuse the music business with music. Good music is NOT synonymous with good music business.

So let's switch gears. With that perspective on music vs. music business, how are you going to approach the Grammy's this year? What does "best song" mean to you? ...as opposed to what the "best song" means to the music business?

Do you know what the best song truly is? The best song is that one you make up on your own that totally connects with your soul. No sales required. No competition. No gold medals. No stupid golden statued Grammy.

Get real people. Music is not about the Grammy's. Music is about what makes your soul sing. No golden statue required to prove it's worth. The worth is the smile on your face. Do your own thing. Rock on people!

Space - The Final Frontier

2010-11-18T20:12:00.002-07:00

When most people think about writing music and/or words, they usually think about the content and filling the audible spectrum with this. Rarely do they think about its opposite....space or silence. But there's something called "groove" that most of us really enjoy in music and words. And ironically, it's usually the space or silence that sets up this groove.

Adding space (or silence) is actually one of my favorite song writing techniques. When I come up with a sweet riff, either verbally or on guitar, my first editing reaction is usually "how do I improve this?" As a young artist, my first reaction was of the form "What can I add to make this better?" But as the wisdom of age sets in on this artist, I realize that the focus of "adding something" is totally wrong. What makes something groove is the space. So now, when I'm trying to improve something artistically, I don't think about what to add. I think of what to remove. When you remove, you reveal the groove.

This especially comes into play when I improvise on guitar. The normal reaction for most lead guitar players is to "play fast in the scale". And when you hear most guitar solos, they are usually constant blitzes of notes that come off like a 30 second chance for the artist to show off. Rarely do guitar solos take the song to a new place. And I think it's lack of space, or the willingness of most lead guitar players to let their lines slow down and breathe, that is the usual cause.

In the realm of words, the same ego concept exists. The spoken word artist usually spews a string of words without time for the listener to reflect, just like that ego-fueled lead guitarist. The work comes off as if it's all about the artist, and not about the art.

Let me make an obvious connection to daily lives. What do you prefer? Constant motion? Or a little bit of silence here and there to reflect?

I don't think I need to hammer this concept home any further.

I think you get it.

Take the same approach with your artwork.

Give it some space.

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Rhythm Guitar Improvisation as Song Writing

2010-11-11T19:03:00.003-07:00

I'm one of those weird guitar players, the kind who prefers rhythm guitar over lead guitar. It’s not that I can’t play lead. I know my scales backwards and forwards. And some of my most treasured live and studio moments involve lead guitar. But that’s not where my heart is.

It’s probably because I’m more than just a “guitar player”. Some of my highest achievements in music came during my time in Nashville as a bass player (an upright bass player). And although I primarily consider myself a guitar player, I’m also a drummer, a song writer, a lyricist, and a vocalist. So I tend to view everything from a more centric position than most guitar players. I tend to see every instrument for its role in the song, a single piece of the entire puzzle. Whatever instrument I’m playing, I like to find its place in the song, and maximize that instrument’s contribution to the entire work of sonic art.

And I think that’s why I prefer rhythm guitar. It has a more prominent role in the song as a whole. The lead guitar only adds embellishments here and there. Of course there’s the occasional (sometimes it’s not “occasional” as much as “obligatory”) guitar solo. But I despise the “show off” guitar solos. In my mind, and from my position as a “centric” guitar player and musician, I always want to see a lead guitar part actually take the SONG someplace, not just take the lead guitar player’s ego someplace. But that “someplace” for a lead guitarist is usually 30 seconds or less. But the rhythm guitar plays a role in the song’s evolution throughout most of its existence. So in terms of the view of guitar’s role in the song as a whole, it’s usually the rhythm guitar that’s more important.

What does this have to do with improvisation? It goes back to lead vs. rhythm guitar. Most guitar players learn to use improvisation in the context of lead guitar. But what about improvisation in terms of rhythm guitar? In my experience over the years in bands and as a music teacher, guitarists rarely think about improvisation from the perspective of a rhythm guitarist.

The obvious question is “Why?” Why would one even think of improvising on rhythm guitar? In a live situation it would create havoc. How could the rest of the band follow an improvised chord structure? But that’s not the appropriate place for “rhythm guitar improvisation”. The appropriate place for rhythm guitar improvisation is in the context of song writing.

What is song writing? At its core, from a purely music (not vocal or lyric) perspective, it is the creation of new musical concepts, primarily a chord structure with melody. Improvisation on lead guitar is synonymous with spontaneous creation of melody. And where the improvisation on rhythm guitar comes into the picture is in the spontaneous creation of those chord structures. And that’s the role of improvisation on rhythm guitar: spontaneous creation not only of the chord structures, but also the underlying rhythmic pattern that drives them.

When I pick up a guitar to write a new song, It’s obvious to me. Song writing at it’s core is improvisation on rhythm guitar.

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Music Creativity - A Simple Analysis

2010-10-28T22:41:00.009-06:00

Recently I took a look at a popular rock album from long ago, Led Zeppelin's debut album, and also a rock album from more current times, Nickelback's "Dark Horse", and I compared them on a simple attribute: song length. The only reason I picked these two albums, is because they both came up in a random conversation, and they are both best selling rock acts of their time.

What grabbed my attention, as I held one CD in each hand from different eras of rock, was the fact that the 11 songs on Nickelback's "Dark Horse" range in length from 3:28 to 4:34. On the other hand, the Led Zeppelin album contains 9 songs that range in length from 2:13 to 8:28. Here's graph of the distribution of relative song lengths on these two popular rock albums from different eras.

This was a shocking revelation to me. Although this is far from a scientific analysis of how rock song lengths have varied over the years, it is still insightful. And, to me, it's an important indicator of how creative (or not) the two bands are in their song compositions.

This simple analysis begs the questions....how creative is the music you listen to (or write)? How many things stay the same, from song to song to song? How much is your music taste (from the standpoint of a listener or a song writer) locked in to the "same old same old"?

In this analysis, I measure one attribute: song length. There are many attributes of songs. But how many aspects of your songs are the same? The same style? The same verse/chorus/verse/chorus formula? The same key? The same tempo? The same 4/4 pattern?

I took a brief look at two representative albums and at one single aspect of their respective songs, the length. Obviously, songs can be measured on many different levels. Song length is just one of them. There are obviously many other important aspects of music. Hopefully, you'll start thinking about all the other aspects of music, too. Creativity is all about breaking boundaries, exploring new territory. It's not about doing the same old, same old. If you're listening to (or writing) songs of a similar length, then you've got your music blinders on. Open up. Think beyond the typical song structures. Don't get trapped in the same old, same old. Think beyond the boundaries.

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Song DNA?

2010-10-21T20:07:00.002-06:00

Simon Hooper of CNN published an interesting article this morning, titled "Scientists study DNA of perfect pop song". The article describes research into “sticky music” (or “ear worms”) in other words songs that are likely to get stuck in your head.

The research is fascinating from a couple of different angles. One aspect concerns how the brain processes music. But another angle of the research is aimed at being able to pinpoint the characteristics of a particular song that are likely to make it “sticky music”. The research, being conducted at the University of London, has produced findings that suggest “stickiness results from a particular balance of certain pitch intervals and particular rhythmic structures.” But the research goes further than this, quantifying that statement to the point that the researchers can predict with 75% accuracy whether a song is likely to be an ear worm or not.

As a song writer, a musician, and an avid music consumer, I am fascinated by these results. What does this all mean? I have great hopes and great fears about this evolving ability to identify the characteristics of a song that will make it “sticky” to the listener. In the next few paragraphs, I’ll address both my fears and my hopes for this new frontier of music technology.

My fears center around the music business that is already way too concerned with music as a business as opposed to music as an art form. As the title of the CNN article implies, if scientists can figure out the “DNA” of the perfect pop song, then we can expect decades of songs tailored to sell to the masses, tailored to get stuck in our heads. The downside is probably obvious. How many times do you enjoy those ear worms that get stuck in your head? For me, more often than not, ear worms are annoying, not soothing. And although I can imagine record execs and music biz accountants foaming at the mouth at the possibility of technology that can produce pop songs that are guaranteed to get stuck in your head, I can’t imagine that many artists will want their work to be crafted by producers to end up as annoying ear worms in large portions of the population. Of course, I can see how corporations will latch onto the technology for commercial jingles and the like. But I can’t see how any artist who is serious about their song writing craft (as opposed to their popularity) would consciously decide to write songs likely to become ear worms.

To sum up my fears, let me explore the obvious analogy of biological DNA. Instead of “DNA of the perfect pop song” let’s consider what society would be like if we discovered the perfect human biological DNA. I would venture to guess that the diversity of the human population would dramatically decrease, as parents rush to produce offspring that have this “perfect DNA”. And, this is my primary fear with music as well. If the music industry adopts these scientific findings to mass produce “sticky music”, I fear music will suffer from a lack of diversity. I fear that musicians won’t be as creative. Instead, they’ll follow the formula (even more than they do now). The result will be devastating to those of us who enjoy the diversity, creativity, and new horizons of recording artists who venture into new territory. Music as a business will flourish. Music as an art form will struggle to survive. And it may even backfire on the music industry, as consumers stop consuming those songs that are at first catchy, but end up as annoying ear worms.

My hopes for this technology, on the other hand, is that this research will lead to a better understanding of how the human brain processes and reacts to various characteristics of music: how frequency, and intervals, and dynamics, and various rhythms all combine to affect the most unique aspect of humans, our minds. I believe that the more we understand this, the more music can be used for constructive purposes, like stress reduction and performance enhancement (think of students who listen to music while studying or athletes who listen to music before a game). And these potential benefits of a scientific understanding of how music affects our brains will significantly outweigh any corporate over-use of the technology for profit (that ends up annoying consumers in the form of exposure to an exponential increase in ear worm inducing music).

But I have one more hope that blooms from my experience as a song writer and musician. Since the research has produced a formula that is 75% accurate at predicting the “ear-worminess” of a song, my hope is that more song writers will rebel against the music creation process being reduced to a recipe. As a song writer, I have found a great deal of satisfaction and reward (and surprisingly good music) by consciously breaking the typical song writing formulas. The most common song-writing formula in popular music is the verse/chorus/bridge format. And, of course, this new “pop song DNA” research has the potential to make such formulas even more specific. But the more formulas used to write music, the less creativity involved. I’m sure a significant number of recording artists will respond by using the formula as a means to increase profit. But I’m also sure that there will be a significant number of recording artists and musicians who will respond to the corporate pressure to be more formulaic, by rebelling, by making choices that go against the formula, by pushing the boundaries, and by exploring new musical territory. In short, my hope is that the more music gets reduced to a formula, the more artists will actively search for ways to emphasize the creative, artistic aspects of music, and down play the formulas. I’m hoping the move towards more “formula-based” music creates a rebellion among musicians that actually sends the music-making trend in the other direction.

Since we’re combining the topics of science and music (DNA and songs), let me end with another scientific analogy: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton’s third law of motion). It is my hope that song writers and musicians react with an equal and opposite reaction to the evolving formulas that characterize “sticky music”. Such a backlash against formula-driven music could be a great boon for our society’s diverse musical landscape, and could lead to exploration of exciting new musical territory.

I’ll leave you with an example of breaking song formulas, with a link to a song that does so. This song, called “Fire in Shadows”, was written and recorded a couple of years ago by a rock band that I was leading at the time. This song has an interesting story. At the time, this band had a CD out that got a good bit of radio airplay in the Denver area. But this particular song was rejected by the DJ’s, because (as they explicitly told us) it does not follow the typical verse/chorus formula. Instead, this song starts relatively tame, builds to a single climax, and comes back down from there, with no definable “chorus”. As song writers, we are proud of this composition. And our fans appreciated this tune…it was one of our most popular when it was played live. And many fans told me it was a staple on their music favorite lists on their mp3 players. So it was popular with fans, but totally rejected by “the formula based industry” of the music business. I’m proud of the creativity. And I hope more musicians and song writers follow this vein of creativity, instead of the “formulas” that are becoming more prevalent in the industry.

Here’s the link to the song: "Fire in Shadows" by All7Said.

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Speak Music

2010-10-16T12:55:00.002-06:00

There was a fascinating article in the Seattle Times this week: "Medical: Music gets tuned to our moods" by Lee Bowman, Seattle Times (Wednesday October 13). The article is about research being conducted by music psychologists and audio engineers at Glasgow Caledonian University in Scotland. The objective of this research is to understand how music communicates emotion. And by the terminology "understand", I mean understand to the point of being able to prescribe certain music to alleviate symptoms of ailments ranging from depression to Alzheimer's. The research seeks to understand music's ability to communicate emotion to the point of "developing a mathematical model that a computer program could use to identify musical pieces designed to influence individual moods and alleviate particular problems."

Wow! Science is amazing!

I was interested in this article from several aspects, but primarily as a musician. This article describes research into music's impact on the listener. But what does it mean for those of us who are musicians? If these scientists are proving definitively how music communicates emotion, what are the implications for those of us who create music? This topic begs us to look at music as a language, a formal method of communication.

Written language is good for communicating facts. Music, as this research is proving, is better at communicating emotion. As a real world example of this, consider love scenes in movies. In love scenes, there's typically a song playing, instead of a sports-like play-by-play verbal language description of what's happening on screen. It's also why there are thousands, if not millions, of songs about love but not many songs about, say, recipes. Recipes don't include much emotion. A recipe for meatloaf contains a lot of facts, and some information and instructions. But little emotion. That's why there aren't many songs about meatloaf recipes. Written word is good for communicating facts, but music is the language of emotion.

To communicate in the language of music, we use notes and chords like letters and words are used in the English language. In written language, individual words aren't as important as the meaning conveyed by a phrase of words. And looking at music from this perspective, I suggest that as musicians, we should focus more on the emotion communicated, as opposed to the specific notes that are part of that communication. Your mental activity as you play, should be like your mental activity when you are having a conversation. When you talk, you are usually not focused on individual words, as much as the ideas in your head that you are trying to communicate. When you play or perform, you should concentrate more on the communication of the mood or emotion, than on the individual notes. Pay more attention to the groove, and the feel, than anything else. Locked into the groove, missed notes are hardly noticed. But if you play by focusing on the notes, and you happen to miss one, it can throw off your timing, and the groove is lost, and potentially the next few notes as well as you try to get back on track.

I have applied this perspective on music to my live performances, with amazing results. When I used to perform live, I'd concentrate on the notes of the guitar lines, or vocal lines, or the chords I was playing. The important concept here is that I was focusing on notes and chords (that are made up of notes). But now, I focus more on the aspects of my performance related to the communication of emotion. I concentrate on the feel, the groove. Notes are one only one small fraction of that. But there are so many other aspects of the communication: dynamics, tone, rhythm, crisp distinctions between staccato and legato phrases. It's attention to the detail of all these other aspects of the sounds I'm using to communicate that dominates my on-stage attention. And my playing and my performances have improved dramatically because of this re-directed focus.

This new focus is an easy thing to incorporate into your playing, no matter what your current level of ability, because we all have this in-born ability. To illustrate, think about communicating an emotion with your voice, but with no words. All of you could do this, with a cry, a laugh, a scream, a moan, a sigh, a cough, etc. In other words, with nothing but non-verbal sounds, you can easily communicate emotion. Making sounds to communicate with an instrument is not much different than making sounds with your voice in this respect. As a human, you instinctively feel the emotion associated with certain aspects of sound. A sudden loud noise will evoke an emotion of fright in most mammals. Communicating with sound is natural and in-born. Connect with that aspect of your humanity as you play and perform.

No matter what your level of technical ability as a musician, from seasoned pro, to someone just thinking about starting to take lessons, my advice for you to elevate your playing, is to focus more on communicating emotion with sound, rather than focusing on simply playing the notes. Concentrate on the feel and the groove, and how it communicates. Again, music is the language for communicating emotion. So treat it like a language. Learn to "speak music".

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Music, Food, and the Concept of Quality (or "Lady Gaga & the Big Mac")

2010-10-07T17:34:00.002-06:00

What do Lady Gaga and the Big Mac have in common? The mind wanders at the bizarre comparison. Is it the fact that they both are known to be seen in public with slabs of meat on them? ;-) Stepping back and looking at the comparison more broadly, what do music and food have in common? They both have the ability to delight (or rebuke) the senses. Food is obviously judged primarily on how the taste is perceived. And each one of us typically judges music by how the sound is perceived. Of course, both are subjective, based on the preferences of the observer. But on a larger scale, as a society, we treat music and food quite differently in how we deem something to be “good” or of high quality.

Let’s start with a look at how we evaluate the quality of food. If I asked you “What’s the best hamburger in the world?” would the Big Mac be at the top of your list? Probably not. The Big Mac may be the best selling hamburger in the world, but in the world of food, the quality of the product is not judged based on the quantity of sales. Sure, when you watch the Food Network and its cooking competitions, things other than taste come in to play, qualities like presentation. But "gross sales" is rarely considered the best measure of the quality of food. What matters most is how we (or the judges) perceive the food with the taste buds, and the quality of that sensation.

But the way our society evaluates music is just the opposite. In the world of music, “best selling” is more often than not, the measure of quality. The Billboard music charts are a prime example. In the food world, no one would confuse “best selling” with “best tasting”. Why, then, is the music world so centered around the concept of “best selling = best”? I’m sure it has to do with the fact that the world of music, as most fans know it, is really not “music” but the “music business”. And in the world of the music business, the concept of “best selling” does make sense. But let’s not confuse “good music business” with “good music”.

As a matter of fact, when you think about food and the concept of popularity, the concept of “bland” comes into play. What’s the best-selling flavor of ice cream? Vanilla. But, surely most of you have a favorite flavor of ice cream that’s more flavorful than plain vanilla. And the more I explore music, the more I come to the same conclusion: if it’s popular, it’s probably bland in a lot of ways. I like my food flavorful, not bland. Hot and spicy is my all-time favorite. But that would never be best-selling. And I’ve come to realize that my taste in music is the same way. What I’ve come to truly enjoy and appreciate would never be the most popular, because it’s not watered-down and bland enough. It’s rich and flavorful.

In the old days, primarily before the Internet, folks found out about music from corporations: the ones who determined what music to put on the radio, on television, and in your nearby stores. It was the music business that supplied the music buffet for most music enthusiasts. But we live in a different world, now. Record labels are struggling (as any outdated entity should), because we no longer need corporations to get our music. We have the Internet as our primary source of music now. Sure, there are some corporations behind that, too. But more importantly, there's an enormous amount of independent artists making music available to the general public now.

But here’s the problem: even though we have a new source of music, we tend to still use popularity of music as the primary measure of quality. Instead of “best selling”, now we tend to use metrics like “most downloaded”. But it’s still quantity that drives our perception of quality.

What’s my point? Now is the time to stop measuring the quality of music by its popularity. That’s what Lady Gaga and the Big Mac have in common: they are both popular and "best-selling" in their attempts to appeal to our senses. But again, “best-selling” applies more to business than to the true quality of the product. And more often than not, it also implies “bland”.

So how do we determine what’s the best music? What’s a better measure of quality than sales? Your opinion is all that truly matters. When you go to a restaurant, do ask what item is the best seller? Probably not. You read the selections, and choose based on your appetite at the moment. The concept of “best-selling” or popularity doesn’t even come into play. Treat your music the same way. Don’t buy into the fact that something is “good” just because it has a lot of sales or downloads (or “bad” because it doesn’t). Make your choices based on your appetite at the moment, from the vast menu of music on the Internet. It shouldn’t matter if the artist has a billion downloads or a single download. If it fits your mood at the moment, that’s all that matters. Treat your music like you treat your food…who cares about popularity or sales or downloads? Who wants vanilla when you have all those flavors to choose from? Your appetite is all that truly matters. Bon appétit!

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Why Song Writing Lessons Are Truly Important

2010-07-16T18:13:00.002-06:00

Sometimes the parents of my students do a strange thing. If a teenager happens to get in trouble, for some reason or another as teenagers tend to do, one of the first discipline tactics that comes to mind for a parent, is to take away privileges. So it's not unusual that I get a call from a student (or parent) where I'm told the student won't be in lessons for a while. They are being punished and their lessons are being taken away.

Here's the baffling part: I currently make $50 an hour teaching guitar, bass, song writing, etc. And how did I learn this craft? By doing exactly what my students are doing. I found a competent instructor, and learned, and practiced. And I took that knowledge and started writing music and playing in bands. And here's my point: my students, if they apply themselves can do exactly what I do in a few years. What I teach, will allow them if they apply themselves, to also earn $50 an hour teaching private music lessons.

So their punishment is diminishing their ability to earn a living in the future? That doesn't make sense to me! What I teach can enable them to provide for their families, even if they don't become rockstar famous. Would the parents take away their child's ability to learn skills from an official school curriculum? How much are these students going to earn from their History skills once they graduate? Their Geometry skills? Well, their music skills can be worth $50 per hour. Does it make sense that parents would take away their child's ability to learn these skills? Not to me.

But today I learned that the money is not the most important benefit of learning music. A huge component of music, is creativity. And a new study, documented in this recent Newsweek article, has sounded the alarm that the last few years have seen the first decline ever in the creativity of our youth, in the decades since they began monitoring creative abilities. Although the jury is still out on exactly why (some blame the increased time spent with tv and video games), the trend is undeniable.

But the important aspect of this research is the implication on the success of our youth in their future careers. Studies show that creative abilities are more important than IQ (3 times more important) in career success. A recent poll of 300 of our nation's CEOs indicated the same thing. This study revealed that creativity was the most important skill needed by future CEOs.

In addition to the social factors over the last few years that have lead to the decline, exacerbating this issue is the fact that most public school systems are cutting programs that foster creativity (e.g. art, music, theater, etc.) The implication: private music lessons, especially those that foster creativity like song writing, are more important now than ever. My personal experience and recent research suggest, that investing in your child's interest in creating music, can have a dramatic impact on their future. This attention to their creativity can not only provide a future means for them to earn a living (like the $50 an hour I make teaching). According to this new research, it can also dramatically increase their chance for success in any other field they choose because it helps them develop their creative abilities.

An investment in the creative development of your child, is an investment in their future success.

Manual or Automatic?

2010-01-05T21:05:00.000-07:00

When you hear the question “Manual or Automatic?” most people assume the topic is cars, more specifically car transmissions. Although I am referring to equipment, I’m not referring to cars. I’m talking about the music equipment you own. And whether it’s operated in a manual vs. automatic mode, as I use the terms, refers not to how the gears are engaged, but rather in how your mind is engaged.

When you get a new device, do you always read through the entire user’s manual before you try out the device? Most people do not. They may read enough to turn the device on, or to do the very basics. But most people do not know the full operating capabilities of the items at their finger tips.

Part of this is due to advances in user interfaces that are so simplified that most folks can turn the device on and do basic tasks successfully without ever having to read any parts of the user’s manual. Part of it is due to user excitement, wanting to dig in and experience what this new thing can do, instead of spending time just reading about it. That impatience of “doing” tempts us more than “reading about doing”.

This is especially a problem with devices that facilitate creation of music. We’re so used to just diving in, that rarely do we know the full capabilities of the hardware and software that we’re using to facilitate our making and recording of music. But especially in music, where we are likely to have a long chain of devices (instruments, effects, amps, mics, pre-amps, midi controllers, etc) it is important to not only understand each individual device, but also how the various devices interact with each another. In an environment where tone is critical, shouldn’t you be in a position to exercise the maximum amount of control in your power over that tone?

It’s only human nature to want to take a test drive when you get some new equipment. The problem is, most people never go back and read that manual after they’ve taken that test drive. They learn enough to “get by” during the test drive. That may maximize the fun, right off the bat. But it limits the possibilities, too, if you never go back and learn about the finer details of your machines.

Like most things in life, the key here is to find a good balance. Go ahead and take that test drive. But after you’ve driven your musical equipment around the block a few times and feel comfortable driving, take the time to go back and read through the manuals of your equipment. And here, I’m not just talking about the “Getting Started” sections. I’m talking about reading through the entire User’s Manual. There may be equipment that you’ve used for years and you feel very comfortable with that equipment. You should still go back and re-read that equipment’s corresponding User’s Manual. Over time, there may have been characteristics and capabilities that you have forgotten about. There may be parts of the manual that you didn’t understand before. But now that you have more music knowledge and experience under your belt, you’ll probably understand more of it now. You’ll also be reminded of useful care and maintenance tips that can save you hundreds of dollars!

But there’s another important aspect of this topic: used gear with missing user’s manuals. Used music gear can be a treasure trove for the audiophile or musician on a budget. But most used gear comes sans manual. This is where most buyers would put their brains on automatic, and just jump right in and drive. Again, there’s nothing wrong with a test drive. But don’t let all your drives be test drives. Search online and find the manuals for all your products, especially any used gear you may have purchased without a manual. Read these manuals cover to cover. You will be surprised at what you learn! This is the absolute best way to improve your skills and your equipment set up without spending a dime! Dig in and learn more about the stuff you’ve already got!

So take your mind out of automatic pilot. Go on a search for all your User’s Manuals, and search on the Internet for the ones you can’t find in the closets at home. Make it a priority to educate yourself, on all those devices at your finger tips. And remember, when it comes to driving all your musical gear, put your mind in manual transmission!

Copyright ©2010 W.A. Blevins

Tone & Attitude

2009-12-22T20:03:00.000-07:00

Sometimes it’s not the voice or the words, but the tone of voice that communicates the most. The same is true of your instrument. Sometimes it’s not the notes or the phrase, as much as the tone of the instrument that communicates the feeling. But this is a lot easier to do with your voice than it is with your instrument. With the voice, it’s an automatic part of being human. You don’t have to think about how you express your emotions. It’s just natural.

But with instruments, the opposite is true. Not only do you have to think about it, you have to actively search for the proper tones. It’s found not only in the way you play your instrument, but also in the construction of the instrument, and the various pieces of equipment your instrument might be plugged in to in order to help generate it’s sound. Depending upon your instrument, you’ll typically have lots of buttons and knobs at your finger tips that all alter your instrument’s sound in some manner.

Add to this the myriad of effects that can be applied to instruments, like the guitar and keyboard, and now the tone possibilities seem overwhelming! Should you add reverb? Delay? Chorus? Phaser? Compression? Obviously the overwhelming number of options you have over your instrument’s sound makes it difficult to hone in on that perfect tone.

But the important aspect of your search for the ultimate tone is not the destination. It’s in the journey. You’ve no doubt heard this cliché before, but maybe not in the context of tone. So why am I saying that the search for tone is more important than finding a good tone? Primarily because I don’t believe there is a single “ultimate tone” for any one player. I think there’s an ultimate tone for a song, but not a player. The player should change their tone in subtle and not-so-subtle ways to make their instrument fit their own style and the particular song as well.

Not only should your tone be different for different songs, but your tone will probably evolve over time. Just as your listening tastes in music evolve over time, so will your tone preferences.

Through the process of searching for your ultimate tone (whatever that currently is for you) you are learning how to manipulate your instrument’s tone. And this is the most important aspect of your tone search: you learning how to manipulate your sound. Your ability to manipulate your sound on a regular basis, is the key for a successful tone search. How can you find your ultimate tone if you don’t continually alter your sound in pursuit of that tone? And along your journey, you will discover new and exciting tones. They may not be your favorite. But once you discover them, you’ll remember. And you will come back to those tones from time to time as you evolve. And this ability to revisit a multitude of tones is more important than finding that one ultimate tone.

It is good to finally find that awesome tone that one desires. After decades of searching, I found the tone I was looking for. But that’s just one tone. If I used that one tone all the time, it’d be like a human speaking with the same emotion all the time, like someone who’s always shouting because they are always angry. That would get on your nerves very quickly. Just like a human uses multiple tones, depending upon exactly what they wish to communicate, so should the song writer. The song writer should use different tones for different emotions, different attitudes. Your ability to dial in a tone to fit the moment, to fit the song, will depend upon your search for your ultimate tone, but not whether you’ve found it yet or not, because during your search you will have experienced several different attitudes from your instrument, several different tones.

The tone of your instrument is like the tone of your voice. Accordingly, your ability to apply the right tone (not the ultimate tone) is like your ability to apply the right attitude when you communicate through language. But just like your language communication skills, with your musical communication skills, it’s the range of tones you draw from, not one certain ultimate tone, that will best serve your song writing skills. And this is why your search for the ultimate tone is more important that you finally discovering your ultimate tone.

[Here are some hints as you search for your ultimate tone: Read the user manuals for all the equipment that your sound runs through, even if you’ve used these devices for years. You’d be surprised at all the information a mind can forget over the years. Use clean equipment, especially strings if you play guitar. New strings can alter your tone quite drastically for the better. Always make sure your instrument is tuned properly. And finally, understand how the characteristics of your equipment affects your tone. For example: does your guitar have humbucking or single coil pickups? Are you using the bridge or neck pickup? Are the pickups passive or active? Is your amp tube or solid state? Are you using a mic? Is the mic dynamic or condenser? Knowledge about your equipment and your effects is your most beneficial tool in your search for that ultimate tone!]

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

“Reject!” (Thoughts on Style & Quality)

2009-12-14T17:33:00.000-07:00

I like to think of the song writer within me as having two split personalities: the artist and the editor. It’s the artist’s job to come up with new, creative ideas. And it’s the editor’s job to determine if the artist’s ideas are good enough to keep.

Although it may sound a bit schizophrenic to think this way, there are a lot of benefits. For instance, when you have an idea that you decide is not good enough to keep in a song, how does this affect your psyche? For most song writers, coming up with sub-par material is a negative experience. Not so, in my world. In my song writing world, when the artist has created an idea that the editor rejects, BOTH have done their jobs! The artist’s job is to come up with new, interesting, creative ideas. And the artist has done this! It’s given something to the editor to evaluate. And the editor has done his job, too! The editor has kept inferior work out of my song! The artist is responsible for creativity and the editor is responsible for quality. So in my world of song writing, the rejection of an idea is a good thing, not a bad thing! It’s the editor’s job to improve quality by keeping inferior work out. So the way I view song writing, a rejected idea is not a negative experience. It’s is a positive experience. It has served to improve the quality of my work.

The separation of the song writer within me into two separate personalities, the artist and the editor, allows me to keep my ego out of it, too. Because the artist part of me doesn’t care if it’s “good” or “bad”. The artist only cares if it’s new and creative. The fact that there’s no “good” or “bad” from the artist’s perspective allows me to keep my ego out of the creative processes. But it also keeps my ego from getting hurt when an idea is rejected by the editor. The editor is supposed to reject some things! Otherwise, he wouldn’t be doing his job! And his job is to keep inferior work out of my songs. But the editor is not just in charge of “good” versus “bad” decisions. It will also be making a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down decision based on stylistic tendencies.

And this is another aspect of the editor that is extremely important. The editor not only influences the quality of your work, he also has a great deal to do with your style. And this is an important concept. There are a lot of books about song writing. But within those books, you’ll find precious little information about the development of your style. It’s because this topic is difficult to put your arms around. What exactly is “style”? I would say that “style” consists of those aspects of your music that are uniquely you.

And how do you develop this aspect of your music that is uniquely you? How do you develop your style? This is another reason to separate the song writer within you into two personalities: the artist and the editor. Your artist should be focused on generating new ideas, but not whether they are “good” or “bad” ideas. That’s not the artist’s job. The artist is solely responsible for creating something new. This is where the “unique” part of your style comes in. It’s the creativity of your internal artist that provides that part of your style that is uniquely you.

But the editor has a great deal to do with style as well. And I’d say that the editor’s role in the development of your style is more important than the artist, because it’s the editor that will decide what to keep and what to throw away. Think of the style in your songs as being a lot like your hair style. Your hair style is created by taking all your hair, and cutting parts of it away. Your song writing style is created in a similar manner, by your editor cutting away some of the things your internal artist has written. Your style emerges from the songs (and parts of songs) that you decide to throw away. So it’s not just the quality of your songs that your internal editor controls. It also controls your style, too.

This past weekend, I sat down with an acoustic guitar in my hands, with the intention of writing a really good acoustic guitar tune. But this time, for some reason, I decided I was going to push myself in terms of the quality of this song. My approach was easy: there was no additional pressure on the artist within me. His job was still the same: to come up with new, creative musical expressions. It was my editor who had the tougher job. If I wanted a “really good” new song, it was up to my editor to raise the bar. My editor had to do a better job of keeping the mediocre parts out of this song.

I realized this approach of “raising the bar” on quality meant that I might walk away from this song writing session with nothing. But for the sake of quality, this was the path I decided to take. And sure enough, by the time I put my guitar down on Friday night, I did not have a complete song at all. As a matter of fact, I had only one part written. But I didn’t abandon this song. I knew I had a few hours on Saturday to continue writing, to continue the exploration of musical territory that is the process I call “song writing”. I continued my strict editing as I wrote the various parts of this new song. And by the time I put my guitar down on Saturday, sure enough, I had exactly what I had intended: a really good acoustic guitar tune.

A lot of song writers in my situation would have been uncomfortable, especially ending like I did on Friday with virtually no music written (at least not much “keeper” content). At this point, most song writing egos would have gotten involved with inner voices about being an inferior song writer. But my approach allowed me to avoid all that. I knew that my reduced output on Friday was a result of a very strict editor, not an inadequate artist. I knew that in the end, the quality of my work would be improved because of my approach. Most song writers would have left my Friday night session deflated at the lack of production. But I knew better. I knew that my artist and my editor both succeeded. My internal artist kept cranking out new ideas. And my internal editor rejected all but the very best. I didn’t get down on myself because I knew that Friday was very productive in terms of the quality of my work. The editor had a very productive evening on Friday, and because of this, my finished product on Saturday was much better than it would have been had my editor been lazy on Friday and let inferior parts into my new song.

There are many benefits from splitting the song writer within you into two parts: the artist and the editor. With the artist controlling the creativity and the editor controlling the quality, you have straightforward approaches for affecting the quality and style of your work. And you can do so without getting your ego involved at all. Even when you spend an evening hearing your internal editor say “Reject!” time and time again, you can do so without getting discouraged. You’ll feel just the opposite, because you’ll know that your internal editor is doing its job. You’ll know that every time it yells “Reject!” at one of your internal artist’s new ideas, the quality of your work and your style grows a little bit more.

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

The Dichotomy

2009-12-07T17:11:00.002-07:00

Last week, my latest rock band had its first live show. For me, a little bit of nervousness is usual before a live show. It typically disappears after the first few notes of the set. But this time, as the date approached I found myself getting more nervous than usual. As I tried to analyze why, I realized it was because of the songs this band had written. I wasn’t nervous about how the band would perform. I was nervous about how the band and its songs would be received by the crowd. You see, this band had a set of 8 songs ready to perform, all of them instrumental songs. We had written all of these songs, and had rehearsed them for months. We had even already spent time in a recording studio and had a good EP of 5 of these songs ready to sell. So I knew that as musicians we were prepared for the show. But as one of the major contributors to the song writing of this band, I was anxious about how the crowd would react to a rock band with no vocals. That is indeed a rare thing in the music world these days, especially for a band that plays relatively heavy alternative, progressive rock.

And I realized that the dichotomy I was feeling before this performance was a very typical experience for a song writer. And it’s also a dangerous situation for song writers too. Not dangerous in terms of one’s physical safety, but dangerous from the perspective of your style.

The dichotomy is this: when I’m writing a song and making various decisions along the way, am I making those decisions based on what I think other people will like, or am I making those decisions based on what rocks my world as an artist? I am a firm believer in the latter, not the former. And that’s why I was so nervous. The music was NOT written with the perspective of “will other folks like this?” constantly popping up in our heads. And it’s my opinion that more of an artist’s style emerges when they write this way.

So, in hindsight, my nervousness was a good thing. Right before the show, it made sense that I was anxious, wondering if the crowd would like the music, because I hadn’t given this any consideration when writing the tunes! That’s why it was a good thing. It meant that I was true to my art, and wrote for the right reasons, for me and this band of musicians, not for a “target audience.” When I realized this, I was happy about this particular flavor of nervousness. Because it meant I was honest about the song writing. I honestly did write what I felt, not what I thought people would like.

But let me go into more detail about our approach to song writing in this band. We do eventually want a singer. We simply haven’t found the right one yet. But we are not going to put this band on hold until we find the right singer. Until then, we’ll continue doing what we do, writing and making music, and even taking it to the public with performances and recordings. For us, this current limitation of having no singer means (1) the music has to be strong enough to stand on its own without any vocals and (2) because there aren’t vocals, we can shed the usual song structures (think of the typical alternating verse/chorus style of song).

And we were very careful of this responsibility and freedom of writing without a vocalist. The responsibility was the challenge to write music that was interesting enough without singing. It meant the instruments needed to be more melodic. It meant the dynamics and internal changes of each song needed to be more dramatic in order to communicate the emotion more effectively. And it also meant embracing the freedom of not having a vocalist in order to pull off these things. For instance, after singing the first verse and first chorus of a song, the singer (and audience) expect that song to go repeat the verse again, but with different words. In this case, the same music for the verse is repeated, but it’s a time for the vocalist to tell more of the song’s story. But why would an instrumental song need this same sort of repeating structure? There’s simply no need for it. Of course, we still have repeated parts, because the music listening mind appreciates this. But we were able to be a lot more creative with our song structures and were able to write songs whose structures are a lot more interesting than verse/chorus/verse/chorus.

And how did the crowd react to our first show? We got an overwhelming response. One fan told me “you guys don’t need a vocalist at all!” He went on to explain that our 50 minute set remained entertaining throughout, despite there being no words. Another fan told me she looked around during the show and saw most people watching and listening very intently. The comments from other fans and other bands were very positive as well. And reviewing the audio and video tapes from the show, we realize we’ve got a really special band here with a truly identifiable unique style. Because as song writers, we did not compromise by writing songs we thought would be well received. We wrote what inspired us as musicians, taking the opportunity to be creative in the way we wrote songs (in our case because we have no singer). The result is a band that truly has its own style. We broke rules (like the verse/chorus song structures) because we had no reason to follow those rules. And we took advantage of the situation and this contributed to our style.

So back to the dichotomy: should you follow the trends and write what you think will be popular or should you ignore song popularity and do what’s totally you instead? Do what’s totally you! You don’t need to copy anyone else, or to mimic what’s popular. You won’t find your own style that way. You find your style by breaking the norm, and breaking the rules. Don’t do something in your song just because everyone else does it, or because it’s expected. Yes, this will cause some tense moments, like mine, right before the live show, wondering how people will react to the music. But this is well worth it, a fair trade for writing without any compromises to your song’s “marketability.”

Finding your own, unique style is a difficult process in music. But you won’t find your own style by copying others again and again. When you write, question each decision you make. Why are you doing it this way? Because that’s the way you usually do it? Because that’s the way others usually do it? If these are the only reasons, then challenge yourself to change the way you are doing it in your song! Find another way to communicate the idea, but in a fresh new way.

Be diligent in your approach to this song writer’s dichotomy. As much as you can, follow your own unique internal artist’s spirit when you create, and avoid the “because that’s the way popular songs do it” approach. Enough of that will creep into your music anyway, just because you’ve listened to so many songs over the years. But if you do like my band, and embrace the responsibilities and freedoms that you face as a song writer, you will be absolutely thrilled when you identify that unique style of YOU shining through!

[By the way, I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing to have a popular song. It’s obviously a good thing for an artist’s career. But popularity should be a by-product of your writing, not the primary goal of your writing. Write because you enjoy it, and with the development of your style in mind. With the key in that last phrase on "development" more than "style".]

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

What’s the Score?

2009-12-01T16:26:00.000-07:00

When the word “score” is used in the context of music, it usually refers to the written sheet music. But that’s not what I meant by the title phrase “What’s the score?” I was referring to the usual meaning of “score”: the measure of the outcome of some competition. Unfortunately, our society has made a competition out of almost everything, music included. And, like it or not, as a song writer you will be a part of the sport of music.

Of course, music is not a sport. That’s exactly why I use the phrase “the sport of music” to refer to all those competitive aspects of the music industry, that have nothing to do with the music itself, but with the marketing of that music. How much has the song sold? How many Grammy’s has it won? How many downloads?

But there’s another aspect to the sport of music as well. This other athletic side of music deals with musician acrobatics. You know what I’m talking about, the kind of musician who is so freakishly good at their instrument that all jaws drop in the audience at the shear display of physical agility! Of course, the music is good, but the awe factor is in the athletic achievement, how fast the musician can play, or the circus-like atmosphere of performance tricks.

As you’ve probably gathered by now, I’m using the “sport of music” in a negative context, to refer to all the “gee, look at me” aspects of music, anything that you try to put a number on in an effort to rank it against other songs. As soon as you have done this, as soon as you try to reduce music into a ranking, 1 through 100 of the “best” according to some criteria, then you have missed the point of music.

The point of music is to express emotion. Do we have competitions for other emotional outlets in our society? Do we have a national crying champion? A world record holder in happiness? An Olympic champion in love? No. Such ideas seem ridiculous, because emotion is an aspect of being human that we all share. For instance, with love, we all feel like there will be an opportunity for us to experience the best this emotion has to offer at some point in our lives. Similarly, we’ll all feel happy at certain times in our lives, and we’ll all feel depressed at other times. No human is exempt from these emotions or the depth of these emotions. It’s quite a bit different with real sports, where only a select few can be expected to achieve the pinnacle, the gold medal, or the world record. While there can only be one fastest man alive, emotions aren’t like sports. No one has to train hour after hour, day after day, year after year in order to be the world’s angriest man. It takes no training. All it takes is a little time behind the wheel during rush hour, and your stress and anger levels would no doubt rival the world’s angriest (if indeed there was a competition for this sort of thing).

My point behind all this “the sport of music” talk is to get you to place your ego in proper perspective when you share your music with the world, whether it’s playing live, sending your demo mp3s to friends and family, or just singing to your mate. Despite what the “sport of music” industry would like you to think, music is not a competition. Music is emotion, not an athletic event. Music is about expressing how you feel. And who can truly measure whether you express how you feel accurately? Only you.

The real crux of the issue is this: your musical abilities and your skill level do not matter as much as how you use them. You should concentrate on expressing your feelings in the most creative, artistic way possible using your current level of skill and ability, no more, and no less. The honesty and integrity of your work will add more than any “gee whiz, look at me” techniques your ego might want to throw in anyway. Simple songs can be just as powerful as complex songs. Average musicians can express just as much emotion as elite musicians.

As you evolve as a song writer, try not to get caught up in the numbers of it all, in the “sport of music”. If you are happy with your songs, if you get the occasional “I can really identify with what you are saying” comments in response to your work, and if you are steadily improving your craft, then there’s no need to wonder what the score is. If you are communicating effectively with your music, regardless of your current skill level, your song writing goals will take care of themselves. You will steadily improve, and will produce some surprising gems along the way!

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

The Rhythm Method

2009-11-23T17:22:00.000-07:00

Most song writers I know have a main instrument. And most of the songs they create center around this one instrument. But I have learned that song writers tend to greatly elevate their craft when they branch out and become multi-instrumentalists. Different instruments bring different colors into your songs. If you were a painter, would you paint with only a single color? Probably not. Then why would you want this in your song writing?

Musicians who have spent years working on their skills with their main instrument may be a bit reluctant to start that process over on a new instrument. But there’s no need to fear. Your learning curve won’t be as steep on your new instrument, since you’ll be able to apply your existing knowledge of music to the new instrument. In addition, there are instruments that you can incorporate into your writing that do not require much skill in order to play powerful parts that can greatly enhance your song writing works.

The category of instruments that I suggest adding first is something from the hand drum group of instruments. A djembe, doumbek, bongos, or congas are typical examples, but there are many others. Why do I suggest these instruments? There are several reasons.

First of all, they are relatively inexpensive, and don’t require lessons (or much practice) before you can begin incorporating one of these drums into your songs. And, of course, because there are no notes to pay attention to, it’s straightforward to plan out how to incorporate this instrument into your mix of notes, because it’s the rhythm and the dynamics that matter.

But the most important aspect of hand percussion for the song writer is that it frees you up from the confines of the metronome, or click track, drum machine or drum loops. If you haven’t tackled percussion instruments yet from a creative standpoint, then this is a great way to get started. As a song writer, now you have the rhythmic aspects of your compositions directly under your control, too! The rhythmic aspects of song writing are too often left up to machines or automation, but why would any artist leave a part of the creative process up to a machine? Artists should take control over the rhythm in their tunes, too!

For instance, when I write songs, I like to change the meter at strategic places in the song. Song writers use various characteristics of the underlying music to manipulate the feel of the song. And one of these characteristics that’s often over looked is the meter, the underlying length of the repeated patterns that support that music. Most song writers use 4/4 by default and never roam outside of it. Some will occasionally venture into a 3 feel, like 3/4 or 6/8. But I routinely venture into 5/8, 7/8, and even more “bizarre” underlying rhythmic structures. To me, it’s just another aspect of the music to alter in order to set the mood, just like changing the chord structure, the melody, or the dynamics. Taking control over this aspect of your creations is difficult if you rely on machines for your rhythm. But if you are composing the rhythm parts on your own drum, you open up a brand new world of characteristics to manipulate creatively, like the meter and the tempo as well.

I find that these changes in the underlying meter of the song are much more apparent, and much more grooving, if there is a percussion part to emphasize the new rhythmic structure. This is where hand drums come in. And it doesn’t take much percussion to really spice up a recording of a new tune or a new part of a song. All that’s really needed is for this percussion instrument to emphasize certain beats. This gentle guide for the listener can make the difference between a solid, grooving recording, and a lack-luster demo whose groove is M.I.A.

The other thing to keep in mind, as you contemplate the incorporation of some hand percussion into your work: DO NOT think along typical music boundary lines. For instance, most heavy rock music is dominated by distorted guitars and loud double bass drumming. Hand percussion is rarely found in this genre of music, because it’s normally regulated to Latin music, African music, or drum circles. However, some of my best heavy rock songs are just distorted guitars and a hand drum! Who says you need a fast-footed, double bass drummer supporting your heavy rock tracks? A hand drum can lock into a solid groove, just like that drummer on his expensive 12-piece kit! A hand drum is emphasizing certain parts of the beat, just like that drummer would do. So it fills the same role in the song. But what you have instead is a very creative new take on the world of heavy rock music. The results can be very powerful!

Even if you’re not into heavy rock music, you can still apply this concept to the style of music that rocks your world. I use heavy rock as an example here, because it illustrates the concept of applying hand drum percussion into styles of music where it’s normally not expected. When incorporating hand drums to your songs, this is the aspect you should pay the most attention to. Don’t just add this new instrument into songs that sound like they would normally have that instrument. Think outside the box! Add your drum into styles of music in which you’d not normally expect it! You will be pleasantly surprised at the results!

I have also written several songs that have no instruments except for hand drums and voice. These can be very powerful songs. In the mid 1980’s Bobby McFerrin won a Grammy for his song “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” which was recorded with nothing except his voice and other sounds, like percussion, that he made solely with his body. This is proof that the power of song is in the creativity, not necessarily in the instrument at the center of your songs. And in McFerrin’s case, his “body” percussion was all his song needed to complement the sounds he made with his voice. That song is just voice and rhythm. There’s fertile territory here for your song writing, too, with just a hand drum and your voice.

The idea here is to branch out, and start incorporating new instruments into your song writing, and to do so initially with a hand drum. It will add a new dimension to your work, primarily because this instrument will force you to focus on the rhythmic aspects of your songs, too. Instead of letting a machine do it, you are taking the creative reins over the rhythm. The obvious benefit is that you are not only concerned with the chords and their notes (your main instrument) or the melody (your voice), but also with the very basis of most music: the rhythmic groove. And focusing your creative energies on this aspect of your songs as well, will greatly enhance your songs, and your evolution as a song writer.

So embrace the rhythm method with a simple hand drum! It will inject your music with new life!

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

Incorporating Mistakes Into Your Work

2009-11-16T18:04:00.001-07:00

What? Why would you actually WANT mistakes in your work? Isn't the whole point of being a musician to strive for performance perfection? Who wants errors in their music?

Of course, no one wants bad sounds in their music. But who says mistakes have to sound bad? This past weekend, I was recording a new acoustic guitar tune that I had recently written. As I was rehearsing my parts prior to beginning the recording, I was paying close attention to every aspect of the sounds I was producing. Was I muting the strings too much? Or too little? How clean were my transitions between various parts? How was my phrasing? The dynamics? I was heavily into listening analytically to my playing, as most musicians are prior to recording. In this state of mind, or state of ear, if you will, I heard something unexpected but beautiful! Then I realized it was a "mistake" or rather my fingers hadn't done exactly what my brain was telling them. I looked down to see exactly what my fingers had done. And I played it like that again, and again. It was clear that my "mistake" actually sounded better than what I had intended to play. As the song writer, I decided to change the song, right there on the spot. I added this "mistake" into the arrangement. It was now a permanent part of the song. And a few minutes later, I recorded the song with that "mistake" a regularly appearing part within my new song.

But these kinds of "mistakes" have actually happened to me WHILE I was recording! A few years ago, I was recording a CD in the studio with a Denver-area rock band. And as I played the lead guitar intro to the song, I played it flawlessly, except for the last note. Somehow, my finger ended up two frets below where I had intended it to be. "Oh well,” I thought to myself. "I'll just have to do this take over again." But when I looked up, the producer was looking back at me with two thumbs up. "That's a keeper!" I heard him say through my headphones. Before I agreed it was a keeper, I wanted to hear it. And during the playback, I realized that it indeed was a keeper. What my fingers had played actually sounded better than what my brain had intended. This particular song ended up on the radio, with this intro guitar part, and my "mistake" being the very first thing listeners hear in this tune. It was one of that band's most popular tunes.

I think you probably get my point by now. Sometimes the unintended notes you sing or play can actually turn out better than what was intended. I think this surprises some folks at first, but it also makes some sense, too. So it's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. But the difficulty is in the ear, in being able to listen with an objective ear at your mistakes. The problem is the fact that while rehearsing, we train our ears to listen for "mistakes." And anything that doesn't sound as intended immediately gets labeled as a BAD mistake by your subconscious. Your ear detects that it wasn't what you intended to play, so it immediately gets labeled as "bad." And this is the most difficult part of trying to have an open mind about mistakes, and trying to listen for mistakes that actually sound good. It's because you have been through years of conditioning that "mistake=bad." And all this conditioning is not easily overcome.

But don't you listen every time you rehearse? Isn't every musician listening all the time? They may be listening, but that is not the focus of their attention. When I was playing that guitar intro in the studio and played the wrong note, my producer and I were listening to the same mix in our headphones. After I finished playing that intro I thought I was going to have to do it over. But the producer immediately knew we had a "keeper." How could two musical ears hear the same thing, but come to different conclusions? The producer was not focused on playing. 100% of his focus was on how it sounded. I, on the other hand, was primarily focused on making my hands play the part. Although I was listening, I was only listening for mistakes, those mental cues that would tell my brain that my hands were not doing as they were told! The producer was listening for the quality of sound, but I was listening primarily as a feedback mechanism to see if my hands were doing what I wanted them to.

The point here is not to pursue mistakes, but rather to pursue a different level of listening. Go beyond the kind of listening that only tells you if you played as intended or not. Truly listen to the quality of the notes, not just if they were the intended ones or not. And if you listen with this degree of attention, you will be pleasantly surprised at how many song improvements you stumble upon that were not quite what you had intended to play. But the key, to improving your song writing in this way, is all in the attention you give to your ear, and truly listening to your own playing.

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

Cohorts in Collaboration

2009-11-09T16:31:00.000-07:00

I have been writing songs for myself and for various bands for over 30 years now. It all started with the rock band I was in during my high school days. And, it still continues today. Over the years, I've been fortunate enough to be a part of bands whose musical styles varied greatly: mainstream rock, metal, country, bluegrass, folk, blues, americana, and even jazz. As a song writer and musician, these collaborative song writing efforts have been some of my most rewarding experiences. So, no matter how much you enjoy writing on your own, and no matter how insecure you feel about opening up your "process" to an outsider, I encourage you to consider collaborative writing, too.

One of the most beneficial rewards of collaborative writing is the exposure to other creative ideas. I learn so much when I write with other musicians. It's a typical situation during the song writing process to be somewhere in the middle of a song saying to yourself "Okay, now what should I do?" With more than one brain actively working on this, you're likely to get lots of good ideas that you would never have thought about on your own. This exposure is great for the song writer to broaden their horizons. Nothing adds creativity to your song writing like observing others right there next to you as they engage in the song writing process as well. It's not only good for the song that you're working on collaboratively, it will also fuel your creative fires later on when you are writing alone, too.

There are other benefits as well. Your song writing partners will also very likely introduce you to different styles. Sometimes it'll be just a slightly different style. But, other times it will be a drastically different style for you. I find such moments very liberating, and often this new stylistic approach shows up in the writing I do alone as well. Too often, song writers get stuck in the same old style, writing songs that sound very similar to one another. Artists who are under contract to a record label have to do this for marketing reasons. But if you're not signed (yet), you don't have this restriction! You should embrace this freedom and opportunity to learn and incorporate new stylistic elements into your songs. So don't be rigid and dogmatic when you approach song writing with someone else. Don't force a certain style just because it's what you are most the comfortable with. Allow yourself to venture into new musical territory. Remember, it's a "collaborative" effort, meaning it is give and take. Don't approach this as a necessary evil of having to abandon some of your ideas due to a "compromise." Leave your ego at home and approach your partner's ideas with an eagerness to learn and expand your own musical horizons.

Looking back over all of my collaborative experiences, each has contributed something to my writing style that is still audible in my work today. There's something I take away that influences and improves my own work. I cringe to think of the song writing ruts I'd still be in if I had not been open to new ideas, new ways of thinking, new ways of feeling, and news ways to express those feelings musically.

But there is another benefit to collaborative writing that actually extends beyond song writing. When I look back at my own collaborations over the decades, I realize that these turned into some of my strongest friendships as well. I've spent a good bit of time analyzing this aspect of collaboration, and it goes beyond just being musicians with a common goal. I've been in a lot of bands, with a lot of corresponding musicians in those bands. But when I look back and evaluate my friendships with all of those musicians, the bonds that I developed with the musicians that I wrote songs with, are much stronger and longer-lasting than the bonds with the musicians who I simply performed with. But when you take into context what "music" and "song" really are, i.e. the expression of feeling, then this makes total sense. Because when you sit down with another human to create a piece of music that combines elements of what you both are thinking and feeling, the development of an emotional bond is inevitable. And if this collaboration is a productive one, with a lot of common ground, and lot of mutual understanding, and mutual expression, then the development of a strong friendship is just natural as well.

Bands come and go. Even though bands break up and musicians go their separate ways, strong friendships last forever. When I take inventory of the musicians I've played with over the years, I realize I've lost touch with most of them. But those musicians that I collaborated with in song writing, my cohorts in collaboration, well these folks have been my closest friends and have remained so, even years after those bands have ceased to exist. As a matter of fact, that same group of folks, my cohorts in collaboration, these are the same folks from whom I'm most likely to get a call or an email suggesting we write some more tunes together. So, the collaborative writing doesn't stop because the bands do.

I suspect that as long as I am alive, I'll continually get together with those folks who are my cohorts in collaboration. I also suspect that year after year, I'll add more folks into this inner circle, too. And I know that in doing so, I'll continue to expand my abilities as a song writer, but more importantly, I'll be expanding my circle of best friends.

So I encourage you to approach collaborative song writing, not with apprehension and insecurities, but with the same eagerness and enthusiasm that you'd have when spending time with one of your best friends. Because chances are, your new song writing partner soon will be.

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

Ugh. Practice.

2009-11-02T16:22:00.001-07:00

That’s probably what comes to mind when you think of sitting down with an instrument to work on scales or technique. Most people experience very little joy when practicing those things. It’s a chore. There’s no creativity involved, no familiar tune to ignite your soul. It’s just you, your instrument, and a limitation of your skill set that you are trying to improve. Although striving for improvement is probably your driving force, improvement usually takes time. And, many practice sessions are probably required before improvement is obvious. But, without practice improvement is rarely possible.

It’s a strange dichotomy in music: to improve at this activity that brings so much joy, one has to sacrifice lots of time practicing boring things. If music is so much fun, why is practice so mind-numbingly monotonous? Well, it doesn’t have to be.

How do you make practicing fun? How do you turn these boring exercises into an activity that you actually look forward to instead of dread? It’s easy, if you have a song writer’s mentality, a will to create and to express yourself musically. The key is to play the exercise (the scale or the technique you are working on) a few times slowly to get your fingers somewhat familiar with this skill set. But instead of just executing that skill set over and over, at various tempos, you should engage your creativity. Don’t wait until you’ve mastered the technique to start thinking about how you’d actually use this skill within the context of a song. To make practicing more fun, start thinking about this early in the process well before you’ve mastered the skill. Thinking in this way will engage your mind, something that wasn’t happening with just straight, rote exercises. And before you know it, you’ll actually be sitting there practicing this new skill within the context of a song idea!

If you’ve played around with song writing before, you know the excitement of finding something really cool sounding that you can center a song around. This is one of the joys of song writing. So why not pursue this at the same time you are working on your technique? What better way to get motivated to master this new skill than to immediately starting using that skill in your song writing? Sure, it’s possible that you’ll write something you can barely play. But who cares? As you “practice” this new song that contains this new skill you’re working on, what better motivation could you have for wanting to work with and master that skill? All of a sudden, the work required to master this new skill has taken on a whole new urgency, with much more motivation and enthusiasm than one would normally approach an exercise.

I have been playing instruments and writing songs for over 30 years now. And there are still skills that I’m learning and working on. I suspect (and hope) it will always be that way. I like learning new things and applying them to my song writing. And with the bands that I play in, there are usually times that require me to diligently practice my technique, like the weeks prior to going into a recording studio. I obviously want my skills to be their sharpest when my playing is being recorded. So, those are the times that I buckle down the hardest and practice my scales and techniques the most diligently. I mention this so that you understand practice is not a just beginner thing. It’s something that all musicians, regardless of experience and level of musicianship, should engage in on a regular basis. For performance or recording the payoff is obvious. But for the creativity in song writing, the payoff of practicing is just as rewarding!

Just this week I was practicing guitar, working on my sweep arpeggios, trying to improve my speed and accuracy when I play them. And, sure enough, after about 5 minutes I was bored to tears. But it was because I was playing the same notes over and over again. Then I remembered to not just work on my technique, but to apply my creativity in the use of this technique within a song. Immediately, I started playing these sweep arpeggios in different positions, just like I was changing chords within a song. All of a sudden the music was brought to life. It no longer sounded like practicing. It sounded like a song emerging. My mind was quickly engaged, and before I knew it, another 20 minutes had flown by as I “practiced” this skill in the context of a new song. By the time I had finished “practicing” I realized that I was playing sweep arpeggios better than I’ve ever played them before, with more speed and more accuracy. I also realized I had a great start on a new song. And it was so much more satisfying that just running through exercises.

The idea here is to not shut off your creativity when you sit down to practice your scales and your technique. You can work on your skills and exercise your creativity at the same time. In doing so, you’ll find practice is actually fun. You’ll be more motivated to practice. And the result will be a more rewarding and a more productive practice session. Your skills will improve and at the same time, you’ll probably have new song ideas emerging. So don’t shut off your creativity when you sit down to practice….engage it!

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

"A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words..."

2009-10-26T18:37:00.000-06:00

As a song writer, I usually try to avoid clichés in my writing. But for the topic I'm going to address today, finding inspiration for your song writing though photography, this title cliché says it pretty well. When you recall a fond memory from your past, there are probably several things happening simultaneously in your brain: flashes of visual images of the people and events involved, combined with feelings, and maybe some recollections of the words that were heard or spoken as well. All of these things are found in good songs, too, especially if you view a song's lyrics as portraying a certain feeling using imagery in its words. But this same kind of feeling can also arise from looking at an old photograph of something special in your life. Maybe it's a photograph of a special person, or a special event, or a special place. But the important point here is that certain photos trigger certain feelings, just as certain songs do. And it's this aspect of photography that I encourage you to use to your advantage as a song writer.

As a matter of fact, for the purposes of inspiring lyrics, I rarely go anywhere without a camera on me, even it it's just my camera phone. And the reason is simple: life happens fast, most of the time too fast to stop and document in the form of lyrics. So when I'm living a moment that I believe will be worthy of writing a song about at some point in my near future, I will typically pull out my camera and take a few shots. These photos serve as instant reminders for my brain. The contents of each image typically will trigger certain memories, certain feelings, and also serve as concrete reminders of the visual impacts of that event, whatever it happens to be. And all of those triggers for memories that one finds in a photo, are also useful for composing lyrics later as you are recalling that time and place.

Most song writers and lyricists that I know keep a notebook of their thoughts and ideas. Their notebooks are usually a place where they can organize their thoughts, as they begin to crystallize into the phrases of a song. If you write songs, you probably have a similar solution you use when trying to write lyrics for your creations. The whole point here is to encourage you to incorporate photography into your lyric writing, too. So, your lyric notebook is a great place to tuck away your special photos, photos that immediately force you to recall those special times and places and people. Since these photos trigger various details and feelings, they can be valuable tools for jump-starting the writing process as you create songs about these special people, places, and events.

But incorporating photography into your song writing is more than just pulling out special photos when you're trying to write lyrics. It's also having the forethought to take your camera with you, as you are out there living life. And when you recognize that you are experiencing something that's potentially song-worthy, pull out your camera and snap a few shots. Your goal here is to document the moment, even if the things you are taking pictures of are not photographically interesting. Your goal here is not necessarily to take awesome photos. Your goal is to record the moment in an image, so that later on down the road, if you decide to write about this moment, you can pull out those photos and be transported back in time. Hopefully the photos will bring back more memories, more details than recollection alone. And these additional details should be of great benefit as you attempt to re-create similar feelings using music.

Although photography and music are usually seen as separate art forms, photography can be extremely valuable for the song writer, as I've pointed out. And it serves as a reminder that all forms of art can be complimentary to your song writing. So don't neglect other forms of art because you are focused on song writing. Use other artistic endeavors to inspire your music creations, too! Approach your art with an open, creative mind! Live artful!

Copyright ©2009 W.A. Blevins

That's Odd!

2009-10-19T20:57:00.002-06:00

Most song writers I know rarely venture away from common time. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the underlying pulse or beat of a song that is typically multiples of 4. Usually when you tap your foot to a song, the length of the various patterns in the song will be multiples of four. Just count as you tap your foot to a song "1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4..." and you'll notice that most changes in the song, like the repeated main riff of a song or the transition from the verse to the chorus, will happen in sync with these multiples of four. Occasionally, song writers will get adventurous and play around with rhythms in 3, the typical waltz or jig, or something that we think of as having a "swing" beat. But rarely do song writers venture beyond this.

There are several reasons. The first is the dance factor. Since humans have two legs, most dance steps are built around multiples of two. Therefore, if the underlying beat of the song is not an even number, anyone trying to dance to the tune might have difficulty. But not all songs are meant to inspire dancing! The second reason is that most of the songs we've experienced (on the radio, in church, etc) are based on common time. Therefore, it's what most folks are familiar with, what they feel comfortable with. A third reason has to do with instruction. Those of you who have taken lessons, no matter what the instrument, are immersed in the world of common time. It's the easiest, most straightforward approach for both student and instructor, so rarely does the instructor introduce students to the world of odd meter, that is, beat patterns based on odd numbers.

As a song writer or a musician, why would you want to venture into the world of odd meter? There are many characteristics of music that you can "play with" in order to communicate a feeling: the dynamics, the tempo, etc. And the basic rhythmic structure of your song, i.e. the "meter", is just another characteristic of your music that you have at your disposal to help you communicate the message of your song. So from this perspective, why would you NOT play around with odd meter? It can help you communicate better as a musician!

There's no need to be afraid of this territory. It's not as difficult as you might think. It may feel a bit awkward at first, but you'll get used to it very quickly. First of all consider this fact: any odd number multiplied by 2 is an even number. In other words, if you have a pattern than is based on an odd beat, simply play that pattern twice. If your basic riff has 7 beats and you play that riff twice, that'll be 14 beats, an even number. So, anytime you are playing a pattern based on an odd meter, try to focus your mind on two of those patterns, not one. Since two of the patterns will have an even number of beats, your mind will latch onto that feel more quickly. And this strategy will even allow you to dance to odd meter, too!

But there's another problem. Since common time is so prevalent, most people "think" in multiples of four when they are playing around, searching for new song ideas. So how do you break the mold of common time and get your mind to think in odd meter when you are being creative? Well, you don't really have to. If common time is how you think creatively when spawning new musical ideas, there's no need to mess with that. Instead, what you should do is take that idea in common time, say a riff that spans 8 beats, and either add another beat or subtract one. Simply find something to add (or delete) from your current phrase in common time. In this manner, working with odd meter doesn't change your current strategy for coming up with song ideas. Rather, it's a small step you tack on to your existing process: you simply add or delete a beat (and corresponding notes for that one beat) and you are off and running! To get your mind and body used to the feel of your new odd meter riff, simply play it over and over again. It won't take long for you to feel the groove of this new territory, this thing called "odd meter." And remember, playing an odd meter phrase twice gives you an even number of beats. So concentrate on these doubled phrases if you need to in order to get the feel of your new odd meter phrase.

How would you use odd meter in your songs? As you can tell by playing around with off meter riffs using the strategy laid out in the previous paragraph, odd meters give your music a different feel. And "feel" is what music is all about in the first place! So, odd meter is another tool available for your use as you compose music to achieve a certain feel. Most people find that odd meter has an uneasy feel. Therefore it makes an ideal tool to use if your song is dealing with an uneasy topic, like the break up of a relationship for instance.

But even if your song is not looking for an uneasy feeling, your use of odd meter can spice up any of your tunes. As you play around with odd meter and become more familiar with it, you will find some good sounding grooves! And because so many song writers stay within the common time framework, this territory of odd meter is a great area to find new and interesting riffs and grooves! There is so much unexplored territory here that you will have no trouble finding new and fresh ideas as a song writer!

So, don't be afraid of odd meter. Embrace it as another tool you should have in your song writing toolbox. But most of all, look upon odd meter in the same way that the old explorers like Magellan looked at the unexplored part of this earth: with awe and enthusiasm at the richness and splendor that one might find in that vast unexplored space. So have fun, and go explore!

Copyright ©2009 W. A. Blevins. All rights reserved.

Ignoring the Notes (Exploring Your Style)

2009-10-12T17:25:00.002-06:00

There are many misconceptions in music. As a music instructor, I spend a lot of my time dispelling these myths. And the biggest misconception is that music is all about the notes. Unfortunately, much formal music instruction also focuses primarily on the notes, whether it's from a book, a DVD, online, or from a real instructor. So this misconception is perpetuated by the music "industry" itself to a large extent.

As a youngster, I participated in school band, church choir, and even took piano lessons. Every one of those experiences revolved around a piece of sheet music in front of my eyes that contained a written representation of notes, and my primary task was to decode that written notation into it's correct audible note, either with my voice or an instrument. Very quickly, the music that I enjoyed so much degraded into an exercise in decoding a slew of written notes. Music wasn't fun anymore. It was a complex decoding task. It was more like sports and competition than it was an expression of feeling.

I am not the only one who had to endure this kind of note-centric view of music. It's a common experience for me, when I encounter a new student, to discover this same attitude in their view of music. Typically when a student wants to learn a new song, their primary focus is on what key the song is in, what the chords are, and the series of notes that comprise the various parts of the song.

While it is true that notes are an important component of music, their place as the central focus of music is unfortunate. One has to look no further than the drums (no notes) to realize that there are vital instruments in music for which the concept of a "note" is not critical. Of course, with drums and percussion, it's the rhythm that matters the most. But there are other aspects too, such as timbre, tone, and dynamics (intensity). All of these concepts apply to the instruments that play notes, too! But musicians tend to downplay this aspect of "music", often ignoring them due to the focus on the notes.

When I bring this topic up with my students, most are confused at first. How can one focus on music, but not the notes? That certainly does sound a bit confusing on the surface, until I bring up the topic of style. Most musicians that I know are very interested in developing their own style. But at the same time, most musicians have no idea how to go about finding their own style. They simply assume that it'll be something that shows up eventually, as if it's an aspect of their music that they have no control over.

Your "style" is something that you can actively work on and develop, just like any other aspect of your musical training. But how do you do this? By ignoring the notes. This concept is not so strange as it first sounds. Think about 3 of your favorite guitarists, and how they would play the "Star Spangled Banner." Most of you probably remember that Jimi Hendrix had a famous version of this song. But what if this song was also played by Chet Atkins, or Eddie Van Halen, or B.B. King? They would all be playing roughly the same set of notes. But each of those guitar players would likely have very different versions of the same tune. Same notes, but very different styles. Their style is found in the aspects of music other than the notes: the tone, dynamics, rhythm, pace, tempo, technique, and phrasing. Even the careful use of rests (silence) can contribute to style. And all of these aspects of music are just as vital to your musical development as your ability to play notes. This concept of focusing on aspects of music other than the notes applies to every instrument, not just the guitar. It even applies to your voice.

How do you practice and develop your style? The same way you practice notes. When you practice scales, you typically will play through every note in that scale. You exercise all the possibilities within the concept of "notes." To develop your style, you should do the same thing with those other concepts: explore all the possibilities. For instance with phrasing: are the notes slurred (one note seamlessly gliding into the next) or are each of the notes distinctly articulated with some space in between each note? But even with phrasing, there are more possibilities than just these two (all slurred or all distinct). Some of the notes might be slurred while others are played distinctly. But which ones should be distinct versus slurred? There's only one way to find out: try the various options. And this same approach of exploring the possibilities can be taken with those other characteristics: tone, dynamics, tempo, etc.

But the most important concept here is that you pay attention not so much to WHAT you are playing, but HOW you are playing it. And this requires a skill that most musicians ignore: their listening skills. In order for you to develop your style by focusing on these non-note aspects of music, you will need to carefully evaluate what you are hearing as you try out various options. What do you like best?

So pay close attention as you make music. The notes of music are more about "intellect", i.e. your brain making your body do the correct thing, to produce the correct series of notes. But music is more about "feel" than it is "intellect." And the feel of music is found more in these non-note characteristics than it is within the notes themselves. So as you practice, try ignoring the notes and concentrate on all those other aspects of music, and explore that musical territory with the "feel" of the music as your primary focus. And before long, you will discover that by ignoring the notes, and focusing on these other characteristics of music, you will find your style emerging!

©2009 W.A. Blevins. All rights reserved.

Simultaneously Finding Your Voice... and Peace!

2009-10-05T16:41:00.001-06:00

There are a few common traits I find among song writers. I find that most do not like their own voice. I also find, especially among my adult students, a reluctance to experiment, to just "go for it" and try new things as they search for new ways to express their inner feelings, their inner soul. But there is an easily accessible, traditional form of music that you can use to both gain confidence with your voice, and also to help you work on you ability to express your inner feelings using your voice. How do you do this? By chanting.

What is chanting? It is the rhythmic speaking or singing of words or sounds, usually only a handful of words or syllables. In addition to a small number of words or syllables, chants are also typically characterized by the fact that they only use a few notes, sometimes only one or two notes. Chants also rely heavily on repetition. The words or syllables in the chant are usually repeated over, and over, and over again (for minutes or even hours!). But the importance of chants, for the purposes of working on your voice and your expression, is the focus on simplicity.

First of all, the fact that chants can be spoken or sung, gives you a lot of freedom to work with your voice. And if you are not comfortable with your singing voice at all, you can still make a lot of progress with your speaking voice, gaining a ton of confidence in that aspect of your voice before you try much singing. In particular, even if just speaking, you can still work on rhythm, groove, dynamics, tone, volume, inflection, and many other aspects of your voice. It's just that you don't have to worry about pitch at the moment. And this is great practice for those just trying to learn how to control and manipulate this musical instrument that resides inside your body. And working with chants and your speaking voice should give you the confidence, eventually, to try singing the chants.

The focus on repetition is also important here. Because you are repeating the same phrase over and over again you will become very familiar with breathing patterns that support your voice, volume levels that you are comfortable with and how breathing and volume levels change over time. You can also experiment with subtle changes in your voice. On each repetition, you can change something, to see how it sounds. You can increase your volume, or decrease it. You can change your pitches, depending upon how you feel. You can also change the tempo of the chant, how fast or slow, again, based on how you feel and what best matches your mood at the moment.

But one of the most important aspects of a chant, for the purposes of exploring your voice, is how it allows you to work on your vocal expression. Because chants are typically just a few syllables and are extremely repetitious you cannot rely on a long progression of words to express your emotion. Neither can you rely on any underlying music, because a chant is just you and your voice. The only tools available to manipulate and change the feeling of what you are singing, is by changing certain aspects of your voice: the volume, pitch, dynamics, tempo, etc.

Over the course of just a few minutes of chanting, you will discover interesting things about your voice. As you try various things, new pitches, new volumes, new tempos, you will find areas of comfort and discomfort for your voice. You will hear things you like, and probably things you don't like. But the repetitive nature of chants will allow you to focus more and more on those things that DO work, and avoiding those things that do NOT work for your voice.

Even in the context of "real" songs that I'm in the midst of writing or recording, sometimes I'll struggle with a certain phrase. Maybe the melody doesn't sound right, or the feeling isn't right. To work on this phrase, I'll treat it like a chant, and sing it over and over again. This allows me to concentrate on this one piece of the music, trying different vocal approaches until I find one that fits the current mood and feel. So chants are not just a "beginner" song writing technique. They can benefit the old pro, too.

At this point, you're probably wondering where you can find some chants to work on, what words and notes to sing. You can search the Internet for some, and you will find them. However, what you'll find is that it really doesn't matter for the purposes of improving your song writing craft by working on your voice. To begin working with chants, simply pick a phrase that's meaningful to you, maybe something like "true love never fails". Then simply sing that over and over and over again, with whatever notes seem natural to you. As you chant this, with each repetition, try new things with your voice (as outlined above). Change notes, hold those notes for different lengths of time, try it loud and soft, just keep changing various aspects of it as you carefully listen and evaluate your voice. Chanting is truly this simple.

Before I set you free, to go off and try your own chants, you should know that chants have deep roots in various spiritual and religious disciplines around the world. I mention this because you can likely find some chants that are EXTREMELY meaningful to you from the perspective of your own spirituality. So one of the most beneficial side effects of working with chants, is that you can likely find words or syllables to work with that will tap into your spirituality at the same time you work on your voice. And what a great concept...to work on your voice and simultaneously find some spiritual peace.

©2009 W.A. Blevins. All rights reserved.

The Art of Ad-Lib

2009-09-21T16:32:00.001-06:00

"How are you feeling today"?

If asked that question by a casual acquaintance, you'd probably respond something like "Very well, thank you. And you?" But if asked that same question by a close friend or a loved one, you'd probably go into more detail, and open up a bit more regarding your current state of mind. And, of course, if asked that question by your doctor, you'd probably answer that question by focusing on your physical state of well-being, not your emotional state of well-being. In short, your response to a question like "How are you feeling today?" is determined by the scenario, according to who is asking the question and why.

But do you typically stop to consciously ponder this before responding? Do you evaluate the scenario, analyze the speaker and their intent before you respond? Probably not consciously. And do you plan out every word in your sentence before you respond? Mulling over the possible options for word choice, selecting the appropriate verb from among all the options, checking your planned sentence for proper grammar before you respond? No. Most people do not converse in this manner. When communicating using language in a conversation, your use of language is typically spontaneous, not pre-planned.

And you are able to do this, without much forethought or planning because you have used this skill, everyday for most of your life. You have practice at this, and you interact with others who do this, too. And notice how different this type of conversational language skill is from, say writing and delivering a speech, or from writing an essay or an email. These other types of communication are more pre-planned, with ideas worked out in advance, and maybe re-worked and edited several times before being used as a medium for communication.

What does this have to do with song writing?

As a song writer, you are typically writing to convey a mood, a feeling, an emotion. Songs are rarely used to communicate just facts. When's the last time you learned a recipe by listening to a song? Probably never, because music and songs are typically used to express emotion, not facts. And this is natural, because humans communicate feelings with sounds, like mother and infant who can communicate with coo's and cries and giggles without the need for words. And this is where the difference between conversational language and more formal language, like speeches and essays, connects with song writing. Music expresses feeling, emotion. If some one asks you "How are you feeling today?" you would have no trouble responding, in an ad-lib manner, using your conversational language skills. But could you respond using your voice, but without words? Most of you probably can do this without words relatively easily: a sigh, a scream, a cry, or a laugh. And the nuances of those vocal but non-verbal emotional expressions can communicate further information. Is it a cry of pain or a cry of sadness? Is it a laugh of spontaneous amusement or is it a cunning laugh? Is it a scream of surprise, or a scream of terror? Is it a sigh of relief, or a sigh of despair? The particular nuances of those non-verbal sounds will communicate those subtle nuances in meaning, without you having to consciously think about them.

But could you answer that same question "How are you feeling today?" using an instrument? Could you do that in the manner that you respond with conversational language, that is, without pre-planning anything, just jump in and respond accurately, without any fore-thought? Most musicians at this point would start asking questions like "what key is the song in?" and "what's the time signature?" and "what's the chord progression?" Most musicians would have to frame their response with this kind of info BEFORE they attempt a response. But when responding verbally, you typically do not stop to think about associated structures of language: "should I respond in a complete sentence, or with a phrase? Should I use a simile or a metaphor?”

In a lot of music circles, the ability to pick up an instrument and just play is called "improvising." But I'm actually shying away from using that term. Why? That term, especially among musicians, has come to mean "making up something on the spot that sounds good, and fits with what the other musicians are playing." There are differences between this concept of "improvising" and what I'm talking about here. First of all, if you are just expressing how you feel using an instrument, there's no need for other musicians. This is about you, not you and some other folks too. This means you have more freedom. What you play doesn't have to "fit" with anything else. You don't need to worry about the key or the chord changes. In short, the concept of "improvising" in music has come to imply something that happens within a framework, within a certain key or set of chord changes. But the kind of playing I'm talking about is free from that, too. That's why I'm not using the terminology "improvising." It's simply misleading.

Particularly with improvising, there is a focus on note selection, and staying within a set of boundaries (rules of the key or scale). But this is still a far cry from conversational language, where one typically responds without a single thought about framework or structure.

I am not saying that knowing scales and theory is superfluous. Just the opposite. A solid foundation here can benefit you just like a study of English can improve your communication skills. But, the point is to learn them so well that they are internalized, so that you can use them for expression whenever you need to, without consciously thinking about it. Your fingers may be playing notes from a certain scale, but you are not consciously thinking about that aspect of what you are playing. You are thinking about mood and feel, not scales and notes. And this is just what you do in conversational language....you think about how you feel, not about the various word choices and language constructs that are available to you to express how you feel.

How do you practice this? You simply pick up an instrument and play, without any regard to key, scale, or chord progression. Your only thoughts are trying to play a musical phrase that aligns with how you feel. The key word here is "feel." You want to get used to playing based on feel, not on note selection. And the biggest difference in focus is that you are paying attention to how it all sounds, instead of focusing on staying within the boundary of a certain key.

This was a hard thing for me to do, when I first started practicing this way. But one fact opened up this style of musical communication for me: you can choose any note at random and make it work, no matter what key you are in. How can this be? Chances are, the note you pick at random will be in the chosen key. With only 12 notes in music and 7 of those in every key, there's actually about a 58% chance that any randomly selected note is right for the key. But what if that random note is not in the key? Then a quick slide up one note is guaranteed to be in the right key. But there's another alternative, too: a quick slide down is also guaranteed to be in the right key! So if your randomly selected note does not "work", if it doesn’t sound good to your ears you have 2 immediate options for fixing this: either slide up or down one note. Both are guaranteed to sound good in this key. And what about that "wrong" note you played? If that note is played relatively quickly (i.e. before sliding to the note above or below it) then the listener won't notice that it was "wrong" at all. It will sound like a slide, or a bend. As a matter of fact, song writers will frequently break the rules of theory anyway if it sounds good and adds to the song. So embrace this style of playing and composing music!

What does this way of ad-libbing accomplish? First, as a player, your focus is shifted from scales and keys to actually listening to what you are playing, to the feel, to the sound, to what you are communicating. Of course it takes practice to get comfortable playing this way, communicating in this way musically. But it's the same way you learned conversational language. You learned by doing, by participating daily in this way of communication. Over time, you also took the time to learn more vocabulary words, the rules of grammar, etc. But you didn't need all that to first learn how to express your feelings. You learned that later on, to refine your ability to communicate, to be able to communicate more accurately and effectively. Similarly, you can (later) learn more about scales and music theory, exotic chords, etc. in order to increase your musical vocabulary for communicating your feelings more effectively and accurately from a sound/music perspective.

The essence of what I'm trying to convey here, is that being able to pick up an instrument and express how you feel is a vital ability for song writers. But traditional views of music (i.e. keys, and notes, and scales, etc) tend to demand so much focus and attention that song writers are often unable to see the forest for the trees, unable to communicate a feeling because they are too focused on musical structure. The idea here is not to abandon that structure, but to rise above it, so that it's not the focus of your playing. The structure (just like in language) is not a conscious thought while you are communicating. The feeling becomes the focus.

So try it out! How are you feeling today? Just go pick up an instrument and play! Pick up an instrument and COMMUNICATE!

©2009 W.A. Blevins. All rights reserved.

Attitude - For Musicians & Song Writers

2009-09-14T16:35:00.002-06:00

"I Have a Dream..."

You no doubt recognize the source of those words: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And most know the general context of that phrase, and the fact that his speech on that particular day was about his feelings on a topic that was near and dear to his heart (and the hearts of many others) at that time.

What if I asked you what phrase came after "I have a dream..." in his speech. Do you remember? What if I asked you to learn Dr. King's speech, word for word so that you could recite it all from memory? How long would that take? How much time and energy would it take for you to successfully memorize his speech? It would no doubt take many hours to accomplish this task.

But on the other hand, what if I asked you simply to use your own words, and your own thoughts about issues in your life, and things you were passionate about? What if I asked you to start with the phrase "I have a dream..." and to talk to me for 10 minutes about one of your passions, something you'd like to change in this world? That might take a few minutes, but it definitely would not take hours like the memorization would. It would probably be a lot easier for you to make up your own "I have a dream" speech than it would be for you to memorize Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech. This is probably obvious to you. It's easier to use your own words in describing something you are passionate about, rather than trying to memorize someone else's words regarding what they are passionate about.

Unfortunately, most people do not approach music in this same manner. Usually, when one starts to learn a new instrument, they begin by learning songs someone else has written. But just like trying to memorize someone else's words is typically more difficult than speaking your own words, learning someone else's song, note for note, is usually more difficult than making up your own.

And, yet, most folks who are learning a musical instrument continue to travel that much more difficult road of learning the songs written by others instead of writing their own. Why? I believe it's primarily fear, specifically the fear of embarrassment, of doing something wrong. If you ask any 4-year-old to "draw me a picture of a horse", they'd probably just respond by asking "what color do you want it?" And 5 minutes later, you'd have that picture in your hands. But if you ask an adult to draw a picture of a horse, you'd probably get a refusal woven with an excuse "Oh, I can't draw." In reality, if you could convince the adult to attempt to draw a horse, the adult's horse would probably look a lot more like a horse than the 4-year-old's horse drawing. But, no doubt the 4-year-old will have much more confidence in their abilities than the adult. The reason is simple. The adult is afraid of being judged, knowing that the person looking at the drawing will have a preconceived idea of what a horse looks like. And their drawing will be compared to the viewer's expectations, being judged as "bad" if it falls short. This same intimidating fear of producing something unacceptable inhibits music creation, too.

Song writing is like communicating with language: it's easier to express yourself in your own words than it is to memorize someone else's words. But it's also like drawing: the fear of failure, or of producing something bad, can be so intimidating that one never even gets started. So they continue just to play other people's songs instead of ever trying to do their own thing. As a music instructor, I feel sad for the musicians who are too afraid of failure to venture into their own world of song writing. I view this like someone who learns to speak, but never learns to express their own thoughts. Instead, they always repeat what someone else has already said.

How do you get to the point of communicating freely with music, just like you do with everyday conversational language? How do you get to the point of being able to speak your mind musically, instead of always repeating what someone else said? How do you start writing songs instead of always playing someone else's?

It's all in your attitude, not your skill level. You simply have to be willing to try new things, to explore, knowing before hand that some of the things you explore won't sound very good. This is okay. Get used to occasionally sounding bad without demeaning yourself in the process. Music is a learning process. You will improve and make fewer mistakes over time. When you learned to talk, you first learned to communicate. Things like correct grammar came later, after a bit of trial and error. But you primarily learned by doing, and improvement came the more you used your language skills. The same will be true of your music skills. The most important thing to do is to simply play and try new things without fear, accepting mistakes as just a part of the process. Approach this musical task like a child approaching the drawing of a horse: with confidence in your ability to complete the task with your current set of abilities, and without fear of judgment.

If you can approach music with the ease and freedom that you use to speak your mind (as opposed to memorizing someone else's words or learning someone else's songs), and if you can approach music with the confidence of a child (instead of the fear of an adult when it comes to exploration and the prospect of making mistakes), then you will be successful in your musical endeavors. And your skills will advance faster than your peers who stick to learning other people's songs, and who live in fear of being laughed at for playing a wrong note. But the most important aspect of this appraoch is that you will be learning to express yourself in the language of music, just like you learned to express yourself in the language of words. And eventually, over time, you will learn to communicate just as effortlessly and effectively with music as you do with words.

Summary: Approach song writing (and learning new musical instruments) by embracing the process of musical exploration, trying new things without fear of sounding bad (because you will from time to time).

Next topic: "The Art of Ad Lib" - strategies for musical exploration

©2009 W.A. Blevins. All rights reserved.

A Blog is Born!

2009-04-18T15:52:00.001-06:00

thump.thump.
thump.thump.

A heartbeat! It lives!

As this blog springs to life, you should experience an evolving source of inspiration and information about how to fill the cracks of your life with artistic endeavors that uniquely express to the world who you are. And by "the cracks" I'm referring to the limited amount of free time most of us are faced with in modern society. So by "filling the cracks" I mean finding ways to artistically create on a routine basis, while still maintaining a normal, busy life "on the side" ;-)

Welcome!

Art
www.ArthurBlevins.com
www.ArtSongArt.Net

©2009 W.A. Blevins. All rights reserved.