That's an "Order"....

           Well, I didn't think I had much to write about lately. When I'm not busy with normal chores I'm doing some stuff that's very boring to read about, attempting to get all the details together for tunes that haven't been done yet.
       But an issue has come up which must be dealt with for those of us who still make "albums". It's very similar to what performance musicians deal with in terms of planning "sets" for performance.
      What I'm talking about is the order in which the songs will be presented on the album. It's a subject that is extremely complex and almost an art in itself and worthy of an article.
      I'm sure we've all heard albums that had really good tunes, but something struck us wrong about it and ended up not being that memorable as entity in itself.
     The one I think of is Bob Seger's "The Distance". Maybe it's just my taste, but every song on the album (except one) I consider either excellent or Great! Yet it seems like whoever was in charge of putting them in order didn't have a clue.
This is where the "program" function (which I seldom use) on the CD player became very welcome. I was able to put them in an order that took a mediocre roster and made it downright inspiring....One should never underestimate this feature of music production!

    There are certain features that are the mainstays of good programming. First, you should have a good opening and closing song...These will set the impression for the whole album and is critical.
    Second, you need to take into account: 1)tempo 2)key 3)relatedness/contrast to the tunes around it. There may be other things to consider depending on your writing style, etc.
    Sounds simple enough? Now try to get all these things right for every tune out of, say, 12. You have two songs that complement each other perfectly in theme, but are in the same key and similar tempo? If you can make a medley out of them you can sometimes pull it off, but often not...Scratch your plan, scratch your head and start again.
    Put a tune in a slow tempo/key of A in place. Then you want to build into a somewhat faster tune. You've got the perfect candidate but...oh no! It's in the key of G! That won't have the "building" effect you are looking for. Start again.
    Ok, here's a tune that fits the "tempo profile" you want and it's in the key of say B (or D)...but it's either too similar to the tune before it, or so far out it can't even be considered for a contrasting tune...rather it tends to destroy the effect created by the last tune.
      HELP!
      Well, I am dealing these types of issues right now, which is why it came up as a topic...So here's what I do. Be patient. As with all music, use your head but the answers come more by feel. I write down what I know for certain, carefully consider the options and gradually let it fall into place.
      Also, sometimes I play the tunes on the guitar, trying the "homeless" songs in the missing slots and see how they go.
      And inevitably, when I finally assemble the intermasters onto the final recording, changes demand to be made. Everything from a minor rearrangement in order, to a radical change where one tune sticks out like a sore appendage and demands to be thrown off, and some tune you've barely begun preproduction on cries to be finished and put in the missing spot....OH BOY. Save me from that last! But such is the nature of art...cut corners and you should probably be exploring other career options!

"Tales of the (Studio) Crypt".....

          I've run into one of those odd situations you can get into in a recording project. It may be only of interest to the recording buff or the terminally curious; but here goes.
        
           I had previously copied my old home-recorded 4 track tapes into my digital system. Before putting it on the shelf, I made a new version of "Against the Tide" by replacing most of the tracks, except the "bass". That track was actually an electric guitar, recorded with the tape machine running at double speed so it would play back an octave lower.

        An that is the crux of the problem.
        Suddenly, this tune spoke up and demaded a place on the album I am currently working on. I reloaded the digital data and found most of the tracks had serious sound-quality issues...I believe this was due to my inexperience with new equipment at the time, plus some other reasons.
       I had written a disc of this new mix, with all new tracks...EXCEPT the original bass which I kept, but had laboriously chopped off the "string noise" that occured on nearly every note of the tune (when the string was released).
      Anyway, after reloading I decided to try to save the drums, lead guitar and vocal. The bass had several sound quality problems, so during my long session of moving tracks around to a more conventional layout that I have since developed, I erased the bass, intending to replace it.

    And this is when reality struck. After experimenting with a number of bass sounds, I realized I could get a cleaner track, but could not replace the unique character of my taped "bass". One of those moments! I finally decided that "character" was more important artistically than a "clean track", so I am in a position where I must erase the tune, & reload the data, and rearrange all the tracks in order to get that bass track back again! Oh the fun I have!

About "Earthwind"...

This is a re-posting of an article from "Tom Hawk Revisited", dated March 4, 2011 (original posting: MySpace, March 3, 2009:

If you read another of my articles, you know that I do not hold "copies" of another person's music or style in high regard. For this reason, I feel a detailed account of the origin of "Earthwind" is in order. Although I love the tune and am immensely grateful that it came to me, it put me in a sort of philosophical bind, as I did not ever want to be considered (or see myself as) a "copycat". I briefly even considered suppressing the tune, but I could not bear that. It had to be made, whatever the consequences....

Where this tune came from can only be regarded as a mystery and I myself have no firm conclusions on the subject. But it is no more mysterious than other "inspirations", so I will only relay the facts and you can decide for yourself...Or else like me, let it remain a mystery.

It was several months after John Denver's passing that I had a dream. In this dream, I was in a gift shop in Vermont that I have been to often. There they have a machine with previews of the music on their nature CDs, you know, like wolves howling set to a musical background, loons with classical music, thunderstorms...things like that.

Anyway, in the dream I was looking at this machine that played these sample "snippets". And on it I noticed a John Denver song that I had never heard before...which is odd, since I have followed all his work, and now he was gone. Was it from an un-released album, I wondered...?

I pushed the switch...and out drifted the short little guitar intro, and then his clear voice came out of the speaker...

"Earthwind...Older than time...."

And the dream was over. I puzzled over this. Where could a song like this go? What was it's concept? It seemed like a dead end. He had already said all that with "Windsong" hadn't he?

At the time that this occured, I was no longer a songwriter so I didn't bother to note the date, though it was somewhere between Jan. and March of 1998. But why had this come to me? I had quit writing songs and didn't know what to do with it. But it was stuck in my head, and I treasured it because if nothing else it was a sort of farewell thought of him.

Fast forward to the spring of 1999. I was suddenly & unexpectedly a songwriter again & they were coming fast & furious. I was walking my dog in the woods one morning and turning that little phrase over in my head. It didn't seem to lead anywhere. It had no central concept.

A little while later on that walk, I came over the top of a little hill, looking down into a small hollow that has been kind of a special place to me. And just as I arrived there, the sun was coming over the hill and down into that hollow.

I heard in my mind, "...the light of the sun touched our Mother that morn..." WHAT WAS THAT?! It had come out of the beyond somewhere. And a few minutes later, as I walked..."In the warmth of his fire that being was born..."

I called up my dog and hurried home to write that down.

I did that, and was stumped. I was hearing music, too, so I grabbed up a guitar to work it out. I kept playing those chords and writing them down. But the song still had no center.

As I was working out what I had, another line came and another...but it wasn't like they were coming from me. I was baffled. I'd sit there and say "what next?" and a line would come, already complete. I'd write it down and say "what next?" again.

And that's how it was written. As though someone were standing there over my shoulder, telling me what to write. When I was done I had a complete song. All I had to do was fix a couple of "fuzzy" words, and put the verses in an order that made sense.

So, the song is not an intentional copying of anyone. Nor was it written as a "tribute" song. But the arrangement is all mine and in that, the tribute is intentional, complete with Lee Holdridge-style strings.

I would also like to add that while a number of people have me figured as a John Denver clone, I don't believe that holds up when looked at closely. "Earthwind" and "Images of Maine" sort of show similarities, but by and large the writing styles and phrasings of the vast sum of my tunes are quite different.

Much of what is counted in me as Mr. Denver's influence is mis-attributed. It's actually the fact that I bear certain similarities of artistic outlook to him that caused me to follow him & his career, and not so much for me to emulate his music. The similarites are what attracted and interested me in the first place.

We were both "inspired" writers. We both felt a strong bond with nature. We both sought a universal view for mankind. We both wrote of our soaring highs and low lows.

But there the simlarity ends. We were two very different individuals. And close scrutiny of our respective "musics" would bear this out. I believe this will become more evident if & when the rest of my catalog is revealed.


P.S. Here's another odd clue...when the tune first came to me, I dreamed it in the key of E, which would have been his key. Because the top of my range is a minor third lower than his, I lowered it. I tuned the guitar to an open D tuning.

I can't remember, but I may actually have recorded it with the guitar tuned to Db, which Paul Winter said is the key in which the Earth sings...

In Praise of "Happy Accidents"...

            It is amazing how when one begins to do something you've been away from a long time that many bits of knowledge seemingly forgotten come back to you. More than that, sometimes you are smarter and better than you were when you left. I don't know if anyone else experiences this phenomenon. I doubt that I'm alone in the universe.
          I used to call this "zen guitar". There have been times when demands of life have taken me from my instrument for long periods to where I really felt like I forgot how to play. And during my "not playing", I actually become better! More creative, etc....The muscles become rusty, but that is usually cured in a short time. I thought at first that it was just because I was returning with a "fresh" or "beginner's mind". But I've noticed that it amounts to more than that.
        It seems that as I have developed in knowledge & experience in the understanding of the nature of the universe, that it entails adding to some kind of universal skill that enhances me as a player...without studying, without practicing, etc....And it doesn't just work with guitar-playing.

       But that's not what I began to write about. I wanted to write about those "happy accidents" that occur during the recording process.
       No, I don't mean when you get so involved in the creative process that you forget to go to the restroom.
       I mean those unintended things that happen which somehow mesh with the creative process and end up enhancing the result. And odd flourish improvised, not on the chart that sounds great. Sometimes some stray noise on an instrument generated by creative exuberance or frustration, scheduled for erasure during editing, turns out to sound pretty darn good because of its timing or whatever, so you end up leaving it in.
       The Beatles knew all about this, and were open to using it to their advantage. They were great experimenters anyway, using instruments & equipment in ways far out of the norm. But they always had their ears tuned in for anything odd that might enhance a tune...sometimes this got started by a compressor or some other unit set wrong. Someone would start playing, and they'd think "Wow. What can we do with that?".

       Since I've gotten back to recording again, I've had a number of happy accidents...no jokes PLEASE!...The latest & greatest of these is not completely accidental. Some of it results from educated guesses and the "zen recording" phenomenon mentioned earlier.
      You must first understand that I began working on my current tune 4 YEARS AGO!...It's been one of those situations where life's demands have thrown a series of wooden shoes in my music-making. Working in widely separated spurts, it took the first 2 to make the basic tracks (rhythm section) and vocal for this tune...and then things got really interesting!
     But back before I began, I had a sound in my head for the lead guitar. And in my head I began designing a patch to get that sound. So I have been carrying this around like a grain of sand in an oyster, agitating me for at least 5 years!
     Finally it has come time to make that track. Yesterday I did some very basic settings on my equipment looking to produce that sound I've been aiming for. I worked on it maybe a half an hour, which in recording time, doesn't amount to much. I figured to do a lot more tweaking to get that elusive quality I was looking for...I recorded a test section to see what it might need to match my idea.

     Stunningly    Unbelievably    it needed      Nothing!!!

Still "Plugging", etc...

        This may not be one of my more exciting posts, just a little news brief to say how things stand.
        I am actually "back in the studio" saddle again, though I'm not actually doing  much. I'm sorting thru old back-up discs & paperwork, and checking my drives to see where I stand on various projects.

        Several tunes originally planned for my next album have been sidelined, relegated to a future album because they have been displaced by tunes more appropriate to the theme & feel I intended for this project. A couple are nearly done, so it will save me work in the future.

       Have run into some problems with the artwork for the liner, as there seems to be no way to easily create some figures I need in Illustrator or Photoshop. Hmmm...I'll figure something out.

       Lastly, I have a tentative title for the album, but don't want to disclose it yet, in case I change my mind. Sometimes I have to live with it awhile, to sort of test in on myself lest it be too corny. The catalog # I will use is already settled since it is on all my paperwork already. "In house" I already refer to the project as DNL-041.

      That's it for now. I have practical obstacles that must be done before I can get serious...also need some "acoustic treatment" to reduce the boominess of the new room. But with any luck, I'll be laying down tracks in the coming months, re-educating lazy muscles to play those instruments again.

To Record or Not to Record....

         It has been going around my head ever since I wrote about the difference between "consumer music" and "music as art" that there was another schism or split in the music world that maybe needs addressing as much or more if we wish to gain an understanding of what is going on.
          I sort of touched on the subject when I was discussing the making of recordings, and on the differences between studio and live albums/performances. Ever since the technology became available to capture a musician's art to be reproduced later (thank you Thomas Edison), there has gradually been developing two camps: Those who concentrate on giving live performances but enhance their careers by making recordings, and those who devote themselves to making fine recordings but do live shows in order to promote their albums.
        While certainly not the more lucrative of the two choices, I am and have always considered myself primarily A RECORDING ARTIST.
        I don't want anyone to misunderstand, I really enjoy giving live performances. Playing in front of a crowd is fun & exciting, but I must admit I enjoy the people that have come up to me after the shows to talk even more.
       But I decided early on that I was not cut out for a steady diet of touring, running here & there from show to show...When it comes to the point where I cannot give a fresh, heartfelt performance to my audience; if my songs become stale, and the crowd just a bother I long to escape from...then I might as well be selling shoes.
      Like many artists, I am of a solitary nature, and my best inspirations and work are produced in seclusion. So being a "recording artist" seemed my best choice.

      Besides not being a great way to get rich, RecArtists have many other pitfalls to deal with. For me, equipment problems are always one. What does one do when you REALLY NEED an instrument for ONE TUNE, but makes no sense financially to go out & buy it...that's where it helps to have other musician friends who can lend you things; something I don't really have available to me. Here's where your dedication to making the best possible recording can get severely tested.
     The one that gets me the most is the obsession itself with making the tracks as good as I can make them...I do not have available to me the vast array of types of equipment, fine players & engineers that those with label backing have. These things cost millions, yet I think my recordings stand up favorably when you consider the "playing table" is as tilted as Mt. Everest.
      For that reason, I know I will never make 10 or 20 albums in my lifetime, like some artists. There's no one to do the editing while I'm sleeping, or to overdub certain tracks while I take a breather on a beach somewhere. Ever try making sure all the equipment in your signal chain is set up correctly, that you're not overdriving any mixers, compressors or your hard drive while you are trying for the best possible performance?....YIKES!
      For me, attempting to make a great recording is like "giving birth" (an odd metaphor for a male, I realize). While I am involved in it, it is an all-consuming obsession. It doesn't let you rest when you're tired, it doesn't give you a good night's sleep while there are problems yet to solve. It's rather like being forced to hold a hot rock, but feels so good when you finally let go. But like giving birth, it is a mixture of joy and suffering all mingled together.
     I think it's like any of the other "great accomplishments" of mankind, a kind of universal experience. Do you think Admiral Peary had "fun" going to the North Pole? Lindbergh "enjoyed" his flight to Europe? It's one of those kinds of things. You do it because you deeply WANT to. The rewards are tremendous but one takes the misery with the territory.
     The good news is this keeps the non-serious, the "pleasure-seekers" to a minimum, since it's unlikely anything they produce will ever be taken seriously.

Looking Forward...

         As busy as I am taking care of other things right now, I am looking forward to the future with some excitement. Not to say that I am anxious, because I know that my kind of projects always happen in slow-motion, requiring all sorts of preparation before they can even begin.

         First, I am looking in the next few months to actually get back to RECORDING MUSIC, which is what I am primarily hoping for. My charts are mostly ready, aside from printing out parts, and I have a few unfinished recordings that will keep me occupied in the meantime.

       That's the big news, if I can indeed get it to come to pass (there are always obstacles). But I have new ideas as well.
       I have a aquired a cheap video camera, and I hope to be able to put it to use to make videos. I am going to make a few non-music-related pieces first, just to get me used to using "movie-maker" software, which luckily does not have a steep learning curve.
       But of course, I love learning new things and have begun the daunting task of learning Adobe Illustrator (without a book, tutorials only!). I'm already fairly well-aquainted with Photoshop and have some knowledge of InDesign. I am hoping not only to use these to complete the design for my second album (title not yet settled) but also to create animations that I can set to my music!! Now that would be something, to me at least!
      I have already done considerable work to design a new "Arcturus Productions" graphic to be printed on the disc face, starting with the next album. I intend to use something more in keeping with the concept of "Circular Flight" for on-disc print for that album, if I can ever get a commercial replication going....One reason I'm not yet advertising CF for sale anywhere at this point is because I have so few copies left of the "home publication" that I may wind up without an example to work from if I sell them!
    
     I have more news in the works, but I want to keep them in the realm of possible surprises for now. If you stay tuned perhaps someday you'll see what I mean!

How's Your Songcraft....?

           As I have said before, I don't go around judging people's music publicly, in general. To each his own, if you're willing to pay money for it, I won't be standing in between.
          Yet, of course, I have my own tastes. I believe it was Louis Armstrong who said "There is two kinds of music, the good, and the bad. I play the good kind.". I tend to think along these lines.

         So today I put on my professor's hat (even if only for a moment) to discuss one of the major elements that separates the good from the bad in terms of songwriting: I guess we'll call it "consistency".

        I have written elsewhere that the making of music is a process of discrimination. The songwriter comes up with the idea and works it out. He works toward enhancing the good quality and minimizing or eliminating the bad. Hopefully, every step of the process follows this procedure right up until the finished product.
       But every so often, there is one of those "rules of discrimination" that I see being ignored, and it is one of my pet peeves. It is the rule of "consistency". That is to say, that the melody, arrangement & concept of the tune should all be going in the same direction.

      I see this very often in cover tunes. In the quest to come up with a novel arrangement for an already well-known song, the tempo, harmonies, etc. will get changed until they no longer match the original mood and intent of the lyrics and/or melody...The most egregious example of this that I've seen lately  is "The Grascals" cover version of the Monkees "Last Train to Clarksville".
     The original tune had an air of excitement of two lovers getting together tempered by the solemnity of the possibility of them never seeing each other again. The arrangement supported this mood as well as it could in the rock'n'roll genre so I pronounce it very nicely done all things considered.
     (As a side note, I think it was the timing of the tune that propelled it to the top as many young men were leaving wives & lovers to go off to Viet Nam, the same force of public resonation that drove the Beatles "All My Loving".)
     But the Grascals version is an up-tempo bluegrass performance, the video consisting of all kinds of silliness a la "Hard Day's Night". It's nothing short of ludicrous when they get to the line "And I don't know if I'm ever coming home."....No matter how you interpret that statement, it sounds like they don't care very much if they ever come home. So I cringe.

     I see this more rarely in original work, since most artists are sensitive enough to follow the "consistency" rule, but some very big hits put out by some very famous writers have really blown it. Apparently the public can ignore this if the song is captivating, but I can't. Try singing a Shakespearean sonnet to a heavy metal melody,or try "Into the valley of death, rode the 600..." as though it were a love song & you'll see what I mean.

      The only exception that I can remember to this rule was Neil Sedaka's "Breaking Up is Hard to Do." He actually made two versions; an up-tempo fun rock'n'roll version, and a slow ballad. The subject matter would dictate that a song about a painful break-up would be best served by the slow tender version, but in my opinion that isn't the case. The rockin' version seems to me to have far more to recommend it.

     Which proves that in the end, there are no rules in music. Away with the professor's hat!! While it's always best to learn the rules before you play with breaking them, in the end my best suggestion is: DO WHAT WORKS!

Odd personality???

           There's no offense intended here toward anyone. Nor is this some kind of ploy to get folks to visit my pages.It's just that....I'm curious by nature about differences between human beings. Anyone who knows me or has read my writings knows I'm just that way.

           What I'm referring to is my predilection for searching out new & undiscovered talent on the Internet. I really love to hear what other artists are doing, especially independent and/or unknown musicians, painters, writers, etc. I often follow these links on a whim, curious about what hidden gems may be there...And if there are no gems (only unpolished stones...or even pieces of...well, never mind...)
I still give it enough attention to try to get into that persons head. Why did they write that? How do they see their own work? Are they in control of their statements? Are they laboring under some sort of delusion of grandeur? I find this fascinating, the only down-side being there is so much material put out these days of all levels of quality, that it becomes overwhelming & discouraging that you'll ever get a sense of it all.

        Even more fascinating, is why many people don't  have that same fascination. I know there can be many reasons...their internet time may be limited, they may be content just socializing or whatever. I perfectly understand. Virtual society purports to be all things to all people and that's OK with me. Yet I am still amazed at how little I see people perusing these. Many folks seem to bypass links wholesale without a glimmer of curiosity about what may be hiding there.

     Maybe it's me. It may be just a family trait; I am that way about other things as well. I often complain to my wife that my biggest problem is I want to know everything about everything. I love knowledge. The internet, to me, is like having the biggest library in the world in my room. I can't pass that up.

     And when I find someone I know personally who is struggling to be an independent artist, I will support them anyway I can. Though you'd be surprised how often I get turned down...the world has become a cynical place. Everyone's motives are suspect.
      While I respect people's rights to do whatever they feel comfortable with, I often wonder when someone tells me that they would be interested in hearing what I do...I say it's just as simple as clicking a link. Yet they never come visit any of my pages...It's OK, it's their right to change their mind or get busy or whatever...just hard for me fathom, since if the situation were reversed I would make it a point to visit them, my curiosity would not allow otherwise! And if I liked what I found I would make sure everyone knew I supported it.
        But I guess we come in all kinds....!

    (I would like to add at this point, that I am equally surprised when someone appears out of nowhere and "Likes" one of my pages! That's fun and excitement!)

The Making of "Circular Flight"....

            As I have written elsewhere, this album began to take root during a time when I had quit writing songs (which for me was like quitting breathing). A number of forces converged on me in a short period which swept me up like a whirlwind and sent me off in an opposing direction.
           So despite the fact that I have good recall for most events, I cannot relate this period in any kind of orderly fashion. But two major elements were at work: First the return of a flood of songs in a relatively short period; and second, my discovery of the new developments in recording technology.

          And that removed an huge obstacle in my path. When the first songs began to come, I naturally asked myself, "What the heck am I supposed to do with THESE?!". This led to me researching new methods for recording, and everything began to snowball.
         You must understand that my last project was the 45 rpm record that I produced back in the mid-80's. A year and a half and way too much money was spent on that project. It was exciting & educational but in the end the outcome was quite dismal.
         While I was anxiously awaiting the finished product to arrive, the TV announcer intoned, "The vinyl record is dead, killed by the new wave of the future, the "CD" or compact disc! Goodbye to those old 45's!"
        Now, I wasn't completely out of touch with what was going on in the music biz, but I wasn't an "insider" either. Only a couple of years earlier, my teachers at Berklee had spoken of the coming of the CD, but always in terms of "something way down the road".
        I could only console myself that when they had asked if I wanted to order cassettes as well, I had said, "No".

        The last I had known, digital recording was very promising, but there was no way to edit effectively. It was still being recorded to tape, not hard drives. But now it had caught up and a small desktop unit could do everything that the big studio could & more at a small fraction of the cost of even the cheapest place.
        If I had attempted to make an album back then, it would easily cost $20-30,000, impossible for me without label backing. Now making your own album was in the realm of possibility.

       Still, when I told my wife I was going to make an album, I explained that I might as well have said, "I'm going to flap my arms and fly now". Along with all the chores of daily life, I would have to add writing, arranging, recording, mixing, mastering, graphics as well as being my own engineer/producer. Building a moon rocket might be easier.
      That's only a slight exaggeration. When I told a friend of mine, "I'm going to make my own album" he also told me, "I'm going to build my own house."
       A year later, his house was essentially finished and he was living in it. But I was still in the process of sorting out tracks and would be for several years. "Losing Game" alone took six months to complete, and several other tunes nearly as long. There are six months in the first mastering just to get the tunes transferred, spaced, levels correct and match them sonically. Later on I did a second mastering on "top" of the first one after living with it and becoming more familiar with the results. But I don't want to give away all my secrets.
      There was one tune, "Empty Spaces", that at the time I really began to think that there were "evil forces" bound & determined to see that it never got made. Not only did the most impossible, ridiculous, and outrageous things happen to foul up production, but after that I got deathly ill and thought I would never finish it.
      I must be nuts: I am looking forward to getting back into making the next album!!

The "Art" of Country Music...?

            Perhaps this post is "ill-timed" in that I don't plan to put out my "country album" for some time yet, perhaps years, if at all. But the subject has been on my mind lately. I feel like I want to dig into it and get it all out in the open.

             The last year or so I have been exposed to a LOT of country music due to circumstances all but beyond my control. To be more precise, my wife is an incurable country music fan, and the circumstances we've been in lately have made country music and videos available for consumption virtually anytime, with the inevitable result. If you're married you'll probably understand.

           My last comments concerning that style of music (if you dig back in my blogs) were about the state of country radio back in the 1980s. My general opinion was that country music was "80% throwaway" material and only a small portion of any value. I feel this needs further explanation, not to mention updating because of the changes to the genre in the last 30 years or so.
         Firstly, in some sense I stand by the "80%" assessment, but it must be understood that I was relating it to music as a whole. Or to be exact "music as art". But this isn't entirely fair, because country music fans don't use this scale of judgement as I do, which I'll explain shortly.
       Secondly, having gained a sense of this "different scale of judgment", I now have a better affection for some of the tunes I was inclined to dismiss as "not being artful". In fact, similar to some old rock'n'roll tunes, they can even bring a tear to the eye being deeply connected to a particular time in one's life despite not being "great art".

        I believe the root of this "different scale" for country tunes is the result of a difference in character of what Country is all about. At it's heart, country was ever only marginally connected to "the art of music". What it is mainly about, is "the art of story-telling", set to music.
      Any country artist or fan could tell you that, but it was hard for me to see because of my musical perspective.You see, music is a very unique art. It's such a great medium for human experience, especially songwriting: the music evokes/imitates human emotion, while the lyrics express human thought. At their best, they work together to create something larger than either poetry or instrumental music alone. Something transcendent. So when viewed this way and new to C&W, one must ask oneself, "what in the heck is the point of this stuff?"
      Add to this, in most music, there has always been a division between "consumer music" and "art".
This could be the subject of a very long treatise, but to keep it simple I'll just make a passing reference to the Beatles. I recall some critic or critics saying that until "Sgt. Pepper", they were just making "dance music". From "Pepper" on, it was art.

       My point is that most country music is consumer music. It's story-telling for cash. This leads one to deal with it harshly in terms of art. But as I always say, the definition of art is a very personal thing. The scale to measure it on is "what has meaning for you?" And country music (aside from the "drinkin' an' dancin'" tunes), has a lot of meaning for a lot of people.
       Modern country is far different from what it once was. Unless you know the tunes, it's very difficult to tell if you are on a country, pop or rock station anymore, they sound so similar. Even steel guitar isn't the give-away it once was, as many country tunes cross over onto pop stations.
       Being now very familiar with the play rosters and the artists, I have to say I have heard a respectable number of tunes these days that, for me, easily make it into the category of Art with a capital "A". Country is not necessarily something to be ashamed of anymore. Looked at from it's own perspective, it often never was.

The Making of an Album....

           It occurred to me, after the last post was published that I had made a statement that needs some serious clarification, before someone misunderstands what I was thinking and takes exception to it: That an album made in few takes is a poor album.
          Of course, I realize this is not always the case, and was generally speaking of the type of multi-layered production that I make, and of which most popular music consists. There are many highly talented solo performers and small ensembles that, once the technical aspects are set-up for a fine recording, can go ahead & in a few takes each can make a series of magical tracks that can become a great album.
          Not to suggest that this is an "easy method" either, since behind those few takes lie many, many hours of arrangement & rehearsal.

           Also there are those "happy convergences" where everything seems to fall into place to produce something special. I'm thinking now of Norah Jones first album, which was actually supposed to be the "demo tracks" for that album...but when they got everything together to make "the real thing", they found there was no way to capture the expressions and sense of intimacy of the "demo"...so they published  it, and the rest is....well, you know.
          I know of several similar stories, and I don't believe that "failure to re-capture" has anything to do with lack of talent or engineering skill. A recording has many subtle features which are deeply connected to the time, place & mood and can't be reproduced at will. I read a story (the artist & tune elude me right now) where the singer/writer made a reference track for his recording while he had a bad cold. When the tracks were done, and he attempted to make a polished final vocal for it, try as he might, he could not reproduce the feel of that reference track. It was put out that way and became a big hit.
  Something similar has happened to me on at least one of my tunes for the next album. I made a reference track in one take, went back and cleaned up a couple of "screwy" lines where I forgot the lyrics or some such; but later when I went to make a final track, I could not top it despite using all the same technical settings, etc. There are a few really small "burbles" (as I might say), but the charm of that performance overwhelms any small flaws in the delivery.

            Finally, in addressing this topic, is another potentially unanswered criticism...."What about a LIVE album...where a great performance by a band is captured on a recording and published?". Putting aside the many instances these days where bands go back to the studio and "fix" live albums before putting them out, all I can say is this: live performance and recording  very often have two different goals. While both share the idea of "putting the tune in its best light", the excitement and connectivity with a live audience, and achieving the same thing thru a more tightly controlled process are usually not that compatible.
            So many bands have tried to put that "live excitement" into a studio album, that it has almost become a cliche...sometimes successful, sometimes not. But if you listen carefully to a truly unretouched LIVE album, you will seldom hear the technical mastery that can be achieved in a studio. I think to most listeners it won't be that obvious, but to those in the industry, the technical flaws in that "great" live recording are obvious and many. I think its a tribute to the high levels of skill by both artists and engineers that the vast majority of fans don't find these obvious.

More "Nothing"....

            If I haven't written anything interesting lately, it's because I'm involved in a lot of that "drudge" work of music that I occasionally have mentioned. Don't get me wrong, for the most part I actually enjoy this work, especially when an occasional creative idea pops up that will improve the end result.
           Mostly what I'm doing has been re-inputing all the arrangements (charts) that I lost when this computer crashed last fall. (They have a habit of crashing the week before I plan to do a major back-up.) Fortunately, I had printed out all of them in almost up to date versions...still a heck of a lot of work.
            I was beginning to break these up and put them into parts. This is necessary since you cannot play off of a score, because there are so few bars on a page that you'd be turning pages constantly instead of playing.
       It was then that a small idea in the back of my mind came to the forefront so I dropped everything to pursue it. I had written a tune that was in my backlog of "forgotten" home recordings. When I compiled these for storage, I had separated out the tracks for this tune, polished/updated a couple, remixed it and put it on the shelf, where it sat......What happened was that I suddenly realized, that it fit the tone and direction of the next album perfectly.
             It's a tune called "Against the Tide". Only a few folks have ever heard it but to favorable feedback. So I began to do a "record-copy" of the tune back into the computer to update the chart, since the organ part was the only one that existed, and it was nearly unreadable.

           This is my news, such as it is...but also I wanted to give a glimpse into the world of the songwriter/musician, because most folks don't have a clue what can be involved. They see a band get up onstage. They start playing and three minutes later they've done a great tune....and people think "Great way to make a living. Music is easy."....and when they record an album, they figure the musicians just get up, play that 3-minute tune (maybe a couple of times to get a good one) and stick it on the album...I'm here to tell you this happens only in fantasyland! Or else it's a very poor album!!


           As many hours as I put in finishing tunes, writing and polishing charts and transferring them to parts, that is only the beginning of the long arduous process of recording, mixing & mastering. This becomes even more difficult when one is not only the musician playing all the parts, but the recording engineer as well.
                  Often trying to get a good take, in tune & well-recorded is like trying to get the stars to align in the heavens.
             I write this to foster the attitude that even though you may not like the music of a particular independent musician, they deserve respect for the monumental achievement the making of a musical album represents.

Nothing fascinating....

           I notice it's been awhile since I've written anything here. Usually because I feel I have to something at least half-way interesting to say before I'll commit it to publication. But all that's going on is just newsy sort of developments, so don't expect anything fancy.

          The good news is that my mind is at least somewhat focused on MUSIC again (and that's saying something). I've got some new software going so I can once again work on polishing up my arrangements ("charts" to those in the biz). I've got tunes well underway for the next 2 albums, plus some good older pop tunes that have no home.
         The "styles" of these songs (when they can be classified) fall into such diverse categories as rock, country, classical, jazz, and even latin! The "latin" is an instrumental tune entitled "Blue Noon" I wrote early on as a college assignment and have already finished recording...It's placement on the next album is by virtue of two things: First, I haven't been able to get it out of my head in the last 30 years, and second, it dove-tails perfectly with a blues-rock tune I wrote sometime ago in terms of harmony & phrasing. I am going to graft them as almost a medley.
       Also this is as good a time as any to mention a style that is pretty much my invention, as I am working on several tunes that fit that category...I don't have a name for it, though I've tried to come up with a catchy name. Sort of a "Classical Rock"...but DON'T think Moody Blues! It's more of a Baroque style blended in with a dark (gothic?) rock ballad...Think Bach meets Black Sabbath or something....

       That's it for now, more changes coming, but looking forward to the day when I can get back to recording!

Death of the CD....

           This is another of those subjects that has been on my mind for a long time. With all the new technology around, being introduced at an ever-faster pace, it was quite sometime ago that the headline was announced on my good old-fashioned TV screen: "The CD is dead".
           Only a matter of time, they said. And dying with it, the idea of "the album"...collections of music from a particular artist. People will pick & choose individual pieces of music, archive them on a storage device of their choosing, and then play back whatever they want whenever they want.
         My mouth gaped uncharacteristically open; to me the CD was NEW technology. One that had the potential to dominate media playback for the forseeable future.

        I can't be sure if the end of "albums" is in fact in sight or not. There are several factors in play that could affect the outcome, so I don't claim to have a see-all, know-all attitude. But my chips are betting on the deeper parts of human nature winning out in the end. Let me explain...

       I believe the conclusion that "albums are doomed" is based on the demonstrable fact that the vast majority of music buyers are young (teens & twenties) and that is what drives this phenomenon. I remember that during that period of my own life that many things in life were new and exciting and you want to sample it all.
      My analogy is that music (at that age) is like a salad bar. You pay your money and go WOW!
"I want to try this! I want to try that!" and you load up your plate until you can't eat any more....until next time, when you do it all again; eating more of what you like & trying stuff you didn't get to try last time...This phase may go on for years.
        But as time passes, and experiences build up, a process of discrimination begins to operate in human beings: the things that weren't really that great you eventually stop going for. Even the good ones, you have to ask yourself, "Which things would I rather have  more of today?". And you end up leaving behind something that's "pretty good" so that you can have more of the good and still have a helping of something "great".
       With music this is especially so...very similar in a way to selecting a mate. You surround yourself by great music, with some good stuff out on the periphery for when you're in certain moods...And then one day you hear a song that just hits you RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES...and you think, "Wow, that song is just like that artist knows me...how I feel, what I'm thinking...and plus revealed to me new things about myself that I never realized. I wonder what else they've written and recorded??"

      Now you have someone who is a potential "album buyer", who maybe doesn't just want to collect a bunch of songs, but would find a deep attachment to a statement in the form of a "collection of pieces" designed BY that artist to form a synergistic entity.

      Of course, I could be wrong. There is a powerful force in what we are exposed to when we are young. A generation never exposed to albums may never be aware what they are missing out on.
     On the other hand, things in this universe go around in cycles. Maybe after a couple generations without albums, someone will "discover" that if they put collections of music in a package and market them together, people will find the value in it...and they will then be announcing the "re-birth of the album".

Where songs come from....

            I have been thinking about this one a long time, and slightly hesitant to write about it. Whenever you start to approach to "center of reality", things get really fuzzy and hard to talk about because you are going where conventional rules cease to apply. As a result anything you write sounds a little bit crazy.
           Creative people tend to understand, but not always, depending on their methods and personality.
           First I want to look at the word "art". It has a common root with word "artificial" meaning "man-made", and there is no doubt that we are humans that create art. But it tends to make us look like we are phonies who are copying or imitating creation, and in a sense that is true. In the case of "writing with intention" (see other blogs), this may seem almost completely true.
         But I am convinced that "inspired" work, to any degree has a source above and beyond any petty desire to imitate.

        To relate this from my point of view I have to delve into a part of my background not yet discussed. I have long had an interest in Native American music, and the ancient songs passed down for many generations in particular. I have played, as a guest, on a number of native drum groups, sung with a rattle in sweat lodge and been invited to join at least 2 drum groups (or "drums" as they are referred to) but neither one panned out for different reasons.
        As I understand it, the birth of most native songs is generally regarded as a spiritual event. The songs are usually regarded as "gifts from the spirit", and not the product of human invention. This fits perfectly with my experiences regarding the birth of songs and was easy for me to grasp.
       During this period I had several experiences which tended to solidify this understanding.
       The Indian way (at least as it was taught to me) was that if you needed a song, you prayed for it.
Once I was on a mountain for the purpose of prayer, and it was a good experience. All was well and I felt in tune with the universe. Despite being a songwriter and musician, I realized I didn't have a personal or "prayer" song. So I prayed for one.
       Almost instantly, I heard a melody. It was in a voice like the wind but definitely NOT the wind. It was very much like my experience in the birth of the song "Freeway" (see my blog on "inspiration" at TomHawkRevisited) but much clearer. Again that "voice" was both old & young, male & female, high & low and everything in between at the same time.
       Like "Freeway", the notes in the melody were not of the scales that humans use, but there could be no mistake of how to translate those notes. It could only be described as a "spirit voice".
      In another, similar event, I used to raise gourds for the purpose of making my own rattles. One day I was checking on my gourd patch, and I remembered from something I had been told or read, that singing to your plants was helpful. So in good Indian fashion, I prayed for a "gourd-growing" song.
      Instantly it was there. This time much more defined & human as it entered my mind and I began singing it.

      These are the things that tend to convince me of what I've always felt.
      Consider, everything that humans produce takes time. There's the planning, re-working, the endless tasks of gathering information and/or material to produce anything. My music is this way. It takes countless hours for me to work out, write down, arrange, record and mix even a single song so that some simple idea in my head can be heard by other people.
      But with "inspiration" this is often NOT the case. One second there is nothing there. Then suddenly it exists. No human work proceeds this way.
      There are those who think creative work bubbles-up from the unconscious mind, and yes I too believe the subconscious is involved. But even the unconscious needs time to work. These experiences have shown me that there is something more at work here, not bound by the constrictions of time & space. Perhaps something from that realm that gives rise to Creation itself.

Art or Entertainment....?

           I never intended to write this article, nor did I intend to write again so soon, the last one being something to chew on...but so much was left out in the interest of being concise, that I feel certain important angles were neglected. Being me (as I just told my wife "I have a burr in my bonnet") I just can't let it go at that.
            I was discussing self-expression but without including what the story is with it. We discussed adaptation, and self-expression is one form of adaptation that we come by instinctively.
          Back to nature....I saw a program on PBS several years ago having to do with bird songs and their purpose which I watched with great interest. It sparked my thinking and some ideas from that program connected with my own "puzzle" to help me explain some things.
        Why do birds sing? Why do humans sing? Why does Barry Manilow sing?(good question).
        It seems that birds (and mammals, and other creatures as well)...come up with creative ways to signal their own individuality to the rest of the world. Bird songs may sound all the same to us, particularly among one species, but rest assured to a bird they may be very different (individual) indeed.
       Not just the songs of the birds, but all these expressions of individuality are messages to the general population about certain things. Mainly about health, fitness, intelligence...you guessed it, it's mostly about mating. The intention is to create a "quality experience" in those of the opposite sex which will render you attractive...nay irresistible to all those cuties out there. Then you can choose from among them.
       So Elvis shakes his hips and croons tenderly and melts hearts...but it sounds ludicrous to think that Bach was writing and playing his clavichord to impress the chicks...though it probably worked.
No, for human beings the "quality experience" is a much broader continuum. Unlike the animals, "quality" doesn't necessarily just consist of raising offspring and bettering the race genetically.
     In my own humble opinion, this is where higher functions, leading inevitably to "spirituality" begin to burst forth to enter the picture. (I am NOT taking the stand, as some might guess, of "looking down on the animals". They possess a different sort of spiritual nature, being closer in a sense to that which created them.) 
      I think we are starting to delineate an arena here: are artists and performers the same thing? Is an artists job just to get you excited, make you feel good, forget your troubles temporarily and then get paid for it?...Is being an entertainer a crime? As an artist should I resent performers who make me laugh, or cry etc. but don't really show me anything new, or change my being in any way?
      I can't answer that. It's a free universe (to some extent), you pays your money and pick out what has meaning for you. Whether that is a lasting phenomenon, an important insight for you, opening up a very small door to a very large universe...only you can say.

The Roots of Creativity...

            I am determined to keep discussions of cosmology separate from these articles about music, but in this case it seems clearly impossible. Cosmology (or philosophy or whatever you wish to call it, though I don't like the term "philosophy") is another subject that I tend to get excited about. Almost no one wants to discuss it, maybe because it's like religion and tends to cause arguments, or maybe just because most people's interests run in a more worldly direction.
          Whatever, the reason, on this subject I cannot avoid it, since in reality all subjects overlap.
          The problem is I cannot really get to the bottom of the subject of creativity without a full disclosure about cosmology, and that cannot happen without permanently hijacking this blog. So keep in mind that I must make some bald-faced statements without explaining them in depth, or the experiences that lead me to those conclusions.

          I have been puzzling over "what is creativity?" and "why are some people artists?" for a very long time, and I find that like most of the very basic questions about human beings, it has it's roots in nature.
          Now, this is where the Cosmology comes in. Almost everything can be traced back to Nature. Yet I find that everything also seems to have a deep permanent home in the spirit, or Spirituality. The two parallel each other in everything. Hence scientists argue that "everything is physical", and religious leaders that "everything is spiritual". This has been going on for untold centuries and I refuse to interpose myself in this argument today. To keep it as simple as possible for today's article, all I can say is "both are true" and leave it at that....Disappointing, I know, but what can I say...?
       In my explanation, keep it mind that I am relating this in reverse order. My thoughts on the subject did not drop out of the sky. I spent a long time "back-tracking" it to the source.
       All organisms on this planet are provided with some mechanism to effect change on it's environment to enhance quality for itself, in order to benefit itself or to prolong life. This will of course, usually have consequences on other organisms around it, either negative or positive. At the same time those other organisms also are making their own changes which will either further enhance or help deter the changes made by the first-mentioned organism. The long and the short of it is that all creatures in a given environment will seek a stasis where everything is in harmony. However, this harmony is never stable, and is more of an on-going "search for stability/harmony".
      The point being that all creatures develop with a capability for adaptation. And this is the key which allows us to understand human behavior; we term some people artists and others non-artists, but this is one of those unnatural divisions we humans make...Like "where does a cloud begin and end"? "When does Spring begin"?. If the calendar says "spring" and you're still freezing to death, what does that mean?
      All humans possess creativity, and will usually express itself in one form or other. The prime manifestation for creativity in humans, is the desire to create and give birth to children. Nothing wrong with that, just basic human design, and for the multitude of people, that, and "nesting" (improving upon your environment....which these days consists of such things as cell-phones & cable TV) is part of that.
     So you will find folks that, even though considered non-artists, will spend inordinate amounts of time & money doing landscaping, home-improvements, decorating or some such...but when they aren't just paying for these services, but feel the need or desire to do it for themselves as an expression of their own nature, haven't they crossed a line somewhere toward art?
    
      When I first began pursuing this line of thought, it sprang from a much more limited question of "what is the difference between self-expression and art?". I couldn't stand the notion that art seemed to be a sub-category of self-expression creating the mistaken impression that art is the inferior category. Of course, I now see that art is by nature a smaller, very highly developed form of self-expression, and not inferior at all.
      Also, puzzling was that some apparently selfish, obscure and enigmatic forms of self-expression occasionally pop up, hailed by some faction of supposedly educated critics as "Great Art". This is more difficult to explain, and I admit that it is perhaps some short-coming on my part. Or maybe just a case of "one being born every minute"...Like the old joke,"Wow! I don't understand it ! It must be GREAT!!"

      So where is that line where adaptation/creativity/expression becomes art? Darned if I know, it's one of those unanswerable questions. But it seems to have something to do with connectivity with other human beings, the transmission of the quality experience, and perhaps even a spiritual source for your material...Just remember "popularity" and "art" are not necessarily synonymous, which brings us to the discussion of Art vs. Entertainment....but that's another story.

 

Music, please...

           I am finally getting around to writing about music,both my own and music in general, which is what's it's all about. I am looking forward to this as it's a subject that still gets me excited and holds my interest, and I'm a little tired of writing about myself. Yet I can't write about music without including the subject of "songwriting" and my own views so I can't avoid it completely.
          Today's subject came to my attention shortly after the completion of my first album "Circular Flight". I had a couple of friends come by and they expressed an interest in hearing it (I never push my work on anyone!) so I played it for them and they seemed pleased with the result. Of course they maybe were just being kind, I recognize that my songs are NOT everyone's cup of tea, nor do I expect them to be. My best hope is that they at least find them artfully rendered.
        But they really listened to them intently, didn't talk over them, etc. However, during the song "Losing Game", during the middle passage with the lyrics "All we are, are ripples on the pond./ We dance for a time, then are gone...", one of my friends spoke up. He is both a religious and spiritual man and ventured an opinion. I don't remember his exact words but it was a vague statement something to the effect of, "Yes, but that's not the whole story...you left out something."

          This statement stuck in my head, and led me down the line of thought which gave rise to this article, years later. This is not the first time I have encountered a similar point of view by non-artists and it got me thinking about what people expect from art. There are many who are deeply into art who are not artists themselves, and often expect art to lay reality (or the truth) bare before them with no pre-qualifications. As a long-time seeker after reality, I deeply empathize with them. At the same time I am forced to defend the artists, because my own experiences have taught me long ago that reality cannot be contained by any concept. And all art is, is concepts hopefully designed, at best, to point at reality, NEVER can it contain it.
        Being created to point at reality, it must always be formed from a point of view. If you continue to broaden that point of view past a certain level, your artwork will lose focus, dissipate, and (eventually) cease communicating anything.
        Here's another example of the problem. Picture an actor who has been selected to play the role of the villian. He is a fine actor and does a superior job with his part to the point where people start hissing him and throwing things at him when he walks down the street.
       The only way he can play the part so well, is by gaining a deep understanding of the character he must play; his motivations, his weakenesses, his self-deceptions etc. In other words, the actor must be LARGER than the character. His own insights must be clearer than those of his "villian" or he cannot play that role effectively.
          In the same way, the songwriter must take the viewpoint of his concept and expand it far enough for the listener to see where he stands in relation to things. You can take your listener to the edge and show him the view, but you mustn't push him off.
          "Losing Game" is a prime example, but you will find a similar philosophy running throughout my work. "LG" is written from a dark but very real perspective of viewing the universe as a place of pain and hopelessness. I'm sure most people can relate to this as one of the most universal of human experiences which is always an ideal place to start with a work of art.
          But (for me anyway) art is not just about voicing and mirroring back to people what they already know. (Look around at what is being put out these days & selling and you might disagree). An artist needs to take you from where you are and then show you something new. With "LG" this dark view has a few windows in it to spot a brighter place, albeit thru a glass, darkly.
         So I seldom produce a negative work without a few strands of hope to grab onto. In a similar way, I don't produce a romantic or happy mood without it being tinged with some pain. This reflects my own experience of life, if not quite aimed dead-center on reality.
         As John Lennon once observed, songs should NOT be intended as ultimate truth. He characterized them instead as "post cards" from the artist, saying "This is what's going on with me. How are you?"....

Enough about me, already!..../Not for everyone.

           There are times that I don't mind writing or talking about myself, but being a basically very private person after I've had my say I tend to clam up and even regret what I've said...I'm sure some will say that this is a psychological problem, and one of those strange traits that often go with being an artist. And this is partly true, but it also has some kind of complex cause/effect relationship having to do with my view of reality.
          Back in my "Yahoo blogs" (which are now available for viewing at tomhawkrevisited.blospot.com), I took on the subject of "words" as poor tools for describing reality. I used the example from geometry of trying to describe a sphere using only straight lines.
          I also said that unlike many writers who have a passion for words, my involvement more closely resembled a WAR with words where my skill was learned from battling with them trying to make them accurately resemble reality...And this is more art than skill, since one must put into play more of the subtle connotations of language to give you a feeling rather than just using a word in a stricter sense. It is a double-edged sword, however, since when you tread in that territory your meanings will become lost to many...a fertile ground for misunderstanding.
        So in my short bio, as in other writings, not only is there much that is left out, but I always come away with the feeling that I have not told the whole truth. It's a bad feeling, almost as if I've lied. This tends to make me feel uncommunicative for a time.

        While it's true that I do enjoy getting out & meeting the public now & then, I really am not comfortable as a "public figure". I enjoy producing my art in solitude, and in fact it's necessary to the creative process. But even were I not an artist, I am a contemplative type of person and could easily see myself as a monk or other ascetic sort of hermit.
       And this is why my music isn't for everyone. I've always tended to write in popular styles. I've always worked to make my music and lyrics accessible to everyone, avoiding the avant-garde.The concepts behind my work tend to be about things that are universally relatable. So why aren't I more popular (I mean besides lack of exposure)?
       I believe the answer lies in my personality. I have studied what makes other artists popular and have detected a real difference. It seems that the average audience craves excitement (I avoid excitement and crave peace). They want to see someone who breaks down barriers, where I am patiently building bridges. They want to dig into the guts of things, while I am trying to ascend to the mountaintop. So it seems I differ from the vast majority who find success and those who bestow it.
       I am not complaining, just stating the situation as it appears to me. To twist an old axiom: "I'd rather be ignored for who I am, than mistakenly loved for who I am not." ....Peace and Best Wishes....TomHawk

"What's my style?"

            Like all musicians I have been asked the question repeatedly by the general public, "So what type of music do you play ?". This is understandable since being on the receiving end of music production, they are used to being fed music in neat classifications, or else organizing styles & genres in their minds in order to relate different artists to what they already know. And many in the music business purposely limit themselves by using the trappings of a "known style" in order to make their musical identity more defined.
          But this question has always stopped me in my tracks. Even when I think of a good reply, it tends to desert me the moment it's needed and I wind up stammering, or come up with some lame descriptive term. That's because on my end, things are very different.
         Before we get into my methods of creation, perhaps I should explain my musical background and influences. As mentioned before, in grade school we were given an extensive musical history and made familiar with so-called "classical" composers, and they became my early heroes. I had already seen the Beatles and had been greatly excited by their music, but was otherwise unaware of contemporary popular and Top-40 for a number of years yet.
       Also, I absorbed a lot of  popular music from the 20's & 30's from various sources. It wasn't until Jr. High that I found a radio in someones trash and brought it home, that I was astounded by what was going on musically. This was around the begining groundswell of the singer-songwriter movement, and I was never quite the same.

      The first tunes I began to play when learning guitar were old folk tunes, since that's what the instruction books came with because they were simple to play. I soon graduated to figuring out Beatle tunes. Or deciphering old sheet music of Beethoven et al on the piano. Somehow this division continued for quite a while; guitar for popular, keyboards for classical (and wishing I could get a harpsichord as I loved the sound).
      Before long I began to compose melodies of my own, at first with no harmonies, or later, with simple two-part accompaniment.
      Later, a book I aquired on how to play blues guitar, and a fascination with the roots of Led Zeppelin's influences led me to a long standing interest in playing blues. Senior year I ran across the opportunity to explore more of John Denver's work, and retraced his folk background which led me to some interesting stuff.
     To make a very long story short, these and other styles gradually came to merge together to where I never really saw a division between them...it was ALL music.
     So anytime I have the opportunity to play covers, anything might happen: Depression-era blues, old C&W, 50's folk or pop, music of the 60's, a few choice artists from the 80' s or 90's....or of course my old stand-bys, singer-songwriter material.

     Being a writer who receives his songs by inspiration, I have little control over what I write apart from to accept or reject an idea that comes. Often the tune itself will tell me what kind of style it wants to be "clothed" in. Or else I will choose elements of a particular style that seems to present the song in it's best light. So there are cases in which I have to limit instrumentation or the voicings in the arrangements to try to make it fit in a chosen style, but only if it enhances the tune. Many, probably most of my works are made with any elements that seem to heighten the tunes direction and meaning, often borrowed from different styles or no style at all!
     So, "What kind of music do you play?" is still an unanswerable question, eclectic as it is. This first album is a conglomerate of acoustic styles with interlocking/interwoven themes, which is how they wound up together. But the next album will likely have darker, more electric themes and maybe some lighter tunes and more jazz influence, but other influences will show as well.

Some observations...and more of "what's up?"

            I am aware that I regularly drop self-deprecating comments as to my musicianship. Anyone might end up thinking that I regard myself as a poor musician, but this is NOT the case so I feel the need for a deeper explanation.
           Early in life, I actually stood out from my peers in regards to musical ability. It also didn't hurt that I was fortunate enough to grow up in a school system where they taught everyone how to read music from the FIRST GRADE!
           I continued high in musical ranking & knowledge thru high school, mainly because I lived music even in my off hours and obsessed over it, wanting to learn as much as I could. But even so, it really wasn't that I worked at it. As I say, I was obsessed and it didn't really feel like work.
           That said, you couldn't really say I tried hard, or I would have learned much more. I was used to being sort of musically gifted.
          So attending Berklee College of Music was a real eye-opener. It began on my first day of orientation when I was auditioned for placement in the guitar program...where they basically told me that I "didn't know how to play"...and ranked me to start at the bottom.
        The reason for this assessment was that being self-taught, I didn't use conventional fingerings, but my own style I had made up (including using the thumb to finger bass-notes). I played everything they asked me to play, could sight-read easily, etc.
        It didn't stop there...I met and listened to many guitar players who had taken their instruments very seriously indeed for many years and realized I was way out-classed. But also I met many who couldn't yet read music, could play very basic guitar but not cleanly, but who had come to learn.
       So I am being realistic from my point of view. I know where I stand. I am not a gifted guitar player. I will never have virtuosity to set me apart, because I seem to be wired with a slow nervous system-muscle interface which does not allow for the facility to play really fast runs, even when I can envision them. And I have never regarded myself as a great singer from the begining. I sing out of necessity, because I am the only one who has the enthusiasm for my work to do so. (I am a product of the singer-songwriter movement, but that's another tale).
       No, my strength lies in one thing only: The songs. There have been many great songs written, and I can always spot inspired work a mile away. While I do appreciate any tune that arises from great talent, inspired work is my favorite and the basis of my own writing, for which I am happy and grateful.
      Someday I will go into my thoughts on where I think these songs come from and their nature. But let's just leave it there for now....

      Now just a short note on what else has happened in the recent past, as far as performing.
      As a side note, another reason I feel I made a good host for open-mike night was the fact that I knew so many songs. I had stopped counting when I had learned about 300 cover versions and had picked up quite a few since then. Not that I did all of them well. But I was really put to the test to pick out and rehearse different tunes from that bunch month after month. Many of our performers only knew a handful of tunes and would have to repeat them frequently.
     Anyway, also during that period, I became involved with a Variety Show put on in conjunction with a local stage company. The purpose was both to showcase talent from the area and to raise money for a scholarship fund to help out a local young artist. I was proud to be involved. I auditioned and then performed a cover of a Don McLean tune which was well-received.
     We had performers of every stripe, singers, dancers, poetry, drama, bands, even a few lip-syncers.
The PA system worked OK for some acts, but was sub-par for others causing complications. The next year I volunteered mine as a supplement to help out. I was permitted to do 2 tunes, and so having completed my first album "CFlight" by then, I chose originals. I reworked the recordings for mono, remastered with no vocals, to be played on the house PA while I performed on my own.
     They seemed well-received (I did "Images of Maine" & "Earthwind") but I wonder to this day how many people thought I was lip-syncing due to the pre-recorded music!

     It was after this that life-changes tore me away from involvement in this fun and worthwhile event and I haven't gotten back since, sadly.

So, what's happened lately???

           In the last few years I have sort of dropped out of sight, as far as public performance is concerned. This is a matter of great regret for me. For while I have always considered myself primarily a "recording artist", it has always been important part of the equation for me to get out there and meet the public.

          Before life's obligations and family changes overwhelmed, I was doing some local performing. For about a year and a half, I was involved in a local open mike night. Most of that time, I was hosting the events. How this came about was unexpected.
          I read about this gathering in the local paper, and it took awhile to both get up the nerve and get myself oriented to try to attend. I don't remember if I even brought my guitar the first time. 
I do remember, the first time I had it with me there was a snowstorm, and the only attendees were the cafe's owner, the host, myself and my wife.
         We listened while he played a few tunes, and he encouraged me to join in. I played a couple and he jammed along, but I was nervous and never really got comfortable that first time. The second time the host was absent, attendance was sparse, but I managed to get up and play a tune after a performance by the "substitute" host, a self-confessed sufferer of stage-fright.
       By the third time, neither host showed and I was elected host, a position I held for over a year. Gradually other artists who apparently had been there before and attended sporadically began to attend and I made their aquaintance.
       So my impression is that I got the job, not because I was the best musician there, but merely because I could be counted on to show up every time. The usual format was that I would get up and perform a set, each other artist would play a few tunes, then I would perform again inviting the others to play and sing along.
      Attendance was never steady, but we had a good number of times with plenty of talented artists and a full house in attendance. Many good times were had!

     Next time, I will relate other performing experiences from the same period of time....