Isn't it terrible that Taylor Swift is more famous than you?

Well, no. And before I tear into my soliloquy I should probably throw out a few qualifiers:

One, I had never actually listened to any Taylor Swift songs or albums. That wasn't for any particular reason other than I can't imagine being in her target audience when she began as a young country Ingenue in 2006, or as she progressed toward being the megastar she is now in popular music. But, as a service to those who will read this, I did go to Spotify, now that she's back, and listened to 2 songs per album as well as the new song that was released last week, You Made Me Do It. 

Two, for those of us not in the business of being both a celebrity and an actual producer/creator-immaterial from we or others may think of your work-it is a kind of macabre fascination into everything that seems to go into being a pop star nowadays.

So is it terrible that I'm not as well known as Taylor Swift? Yes, it's terrible, but...

As a go it alone, work at my own pace, do what I want kind of artist, it is more to my suiting. How? For starters, I don't have a small army dependent on my success to maintain their financial well-being. Of course, they may work for any number of performers, but since Ms. Swift is at the top of the pile, I assume she comes first, and being at the top of the pile requires a whole other level of commitment because...

You're only one dismal record or song or controversy from becoming a B-list celebrity/performer/creator to then finding yourself on the nostalgia circuit or Dancing With The Stars!

That's not necessarily a bad thing, times change, you have to adapt. And she is an attractive woman who I imagine could easily transition in to TV/film, etc.

Sounds like more work than I'm up for (which the snarks would point out is why I'm living in nowheresville, man!).

BUT...the one thing I find most fascinating about Taylor Swift is the feuds, the bad boyfriends, the snark, the victimhood-manufactured or otherwise-it is evidently part and parcel to fame these days. Whatever it is works because everyone is talking and writing about it.

That's the point right? In this age of all that's out there, you have to rise above the noise (sadly that might include me) and be heard. I would think that just by being Taylor Swift whatever your next project would automatically be news in and of itself because you're Taylor Swift? Like the Beatles, right? It's the music, man!

I could be wrong.

The other question is whether this is par for the course when it come to women entertainers of a certain level? Maybe not Adele, but I don't know that for a fact, mainly because I don't care even if some think I should. Instead, I'm the type who thinks the work is what's most important and we know what happens to those types-think noise.

It seems though that to pierce through the fog or shine that bright light is a requirement that I don't think I'm up to even if I had the look, the hook, and the story compelling enough to warrant the scrutiny or interest.

That, however, would require a completely separate post.

More on The Popular Tune

The myth of the hit single is the idea that it can happen to anyone who has a great song. This is not true. Yes, having a great tune is a good thing, but it may have no actual connection to the song's probability of becoming a hit single.

That, as it has always been, requires the right people with the right connections. This is true nationally and locally, although one wonders in this day and age if there is anything intrinsically local anymore that can then be moved nationally.

For instance:

Were I to produce a fabulous recording that all the world had to hear, just how would I go about getting them to hear it? Radio? Well who exactly controls what is heard on the radio? The big radio conglomerates, like the big record labels, are interested in that which will sell and make them money. Do I fit within the categorical imperatives they would require in order for them to promote the song? And without promotion, the song goes nowhere, period.

Simple facts of the game.

And the song is merely a component of the product which is the entertainer. Songwriters are a dime a dozen, and if it takes a dozen, along with as many producers and engineers to create the songs to project an up and coming entertainer into the mainstream stratosphere above the rest of the grasping masses, then if the bet is a good one; the bet is made.

If, on the other hand, you do not meet the necessary demographic, or cultural, or aesthetic (read physical) appeal that research tells us that a song, let's say the song you have written and recorded, will be targeted to, then it is highly likely, no matter how wonderful the song, that anyone will care-beyond telling you, assuming they even took a moment to listen to it, you're not a god fit.

Is this discouraging? It sure is.

And it gets worse! On the very off chance that hard work and perseverance, as well as the fact that you are photogenic and young (this is far more important than you might think for reasons you might not-think contracts), a hit must then be followed by more and any and all appearances must promote the brand in order to justify the burgeoning support foundation you will need to succeed- and those people don't work for free. In fact, most are failed performers who came to the realization that there is good money to be made in the industry behind the camera, if you will, than struggling to be in front.

You have to be able to maintain that infrastructure. many don't.

All for a hit song.

That's not the same as finding your audience. Or your musical calling. It is why I demure when offered unsolicited advice on what I need to do to write a hit song. It may all be good advice, and it may help you write a better song; it may...but a hit single?

Hit, Hits, Hits!

It's got to be the hits, man!

Ok, I get that, but in truth, hits, or hit songs, are for the vast majority of songwriters, out of reach. The basics require a lot of legwork, networking; preferably in the hometown of the genre, think Nashville or LA, and, foremost, songs that are being looked for. Music publishers, agents, and the like, are the gatekeepers between you and your targeted star and the thrill of hearing or watching said star playing your song. And no matter how brilliant, fun, hauntingly beautiful your song may be, if it's not what they're looking for, it's just another song in a sea of millions.

But take heart, there's a beavy of folks out there ready willing and able, for a small fee, to get you to the golden land. I know, I get they're emails all the time. And I don't begrudge them for taking a moment of my time, but I went through this years ago.

At some point you have to decide what you want and how far you're willing to go to get it, and, and this is a big and which a lot of people don't like to own up to, are you or do you have the esthetics, which is a fancy term for the look, to present to your target audience wha they expect to see?

That's big.

And it buries a lot of performers and bands.

But we're talking about the hits! Bands without hits go nowhere, no matter the talent level. Every town has talent, players who will take you to the cleaners; that's life, but their bands never made it or only made it to a certain level, say local versus national. Some may have been one hit wonders. I remember that back in the 80's, the guitarist playing with Jill Sobule had been the guitarist for Sugarloaf (Green Eyed Lady), Bob Webber. And that's not a knock on Bob, he's had far more success than most of us ever will, but anyone who has been in this business knows, life turns quick and you do something different.

In my case I just wanted to make my music without a lot of direction, change, and most of all, a lot of debt. I did it my way and because of that, and a lot of obstinacy, I am an unknown, but I'm ok with that. And I don't mind writing songs for people and I try to give them what they want, but what they get is a Mr Primitive tune...something not too many others have (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Looks like I went off-track

As everyone will tell you; don't try to write a hit. Write what you write and go from there.
You never know.

So, what kind of music do you make?

One of the incredibly delightful parts of getting back into the music biz is describing and defining your sound; what kind of music do you make?

Well, what is my Sound?

Not that long ago I'd of just said Rock music, and those who grew up in the age of Rock would probably understand because Rock was a fairly expansive category in popular music, and it was popular. And at the time that's what it was. Now it still is, but not like it was and it now needs further categorization. Is it soft rock, or hard rock, or heavy metal, which in this day and age; assuming you listen to metal at all, is an archaic term, or is it something else?

Hmmm, something else...

When I listen to the albums I've produced, pre-release, and go over the many sub-genres available to label these older albums, all of which were recorded in the early to mid-80's, I inevitably slam into the same wall because to me it's just Rock music. Not Southern Rock, a term that started with the Allman Brother's Band, (who, incidentally, didn't care for the label, it was, as they stated many times just rock n roll), or progressive Rock, or glam, or Rockabilly, or...you get the drift.

Perhaps Rock was the wrong term to begin with, but I don't exactly know. To me, it's simply modern music based on the popular esthetic I was brought up with. But at the time I was growing up all kinds of music was waffling through the air, Rock, Pop, Swing, Jazz, Classical, Country; mostly on their own stations, but quite often there were crossover hits and on TV, back in the three network universe, you were exposed to any number of different acts; just check out the old Ed Sullivan or Dean Martin variety shows of the 60's to see what I mean. All of these influences infused my music. As did the fact that I was in bands, mostly school bands and orchestras, for all of my formative years. I listened to and played a lot of different music.

So how does that answer the question? It doesn't, but I think it aids anyone listening to what I've produced over the years, and this is more true of the music I'm producing now. Once I got into my own little groove and my own little DIY world, the music I've made is basically popular music driven by whatever influence the song found in me, be it Rock or Jazz or Country, whatever. And the albums themselves began taking on themes through which the songs worked. The idea and focus was that the music was a journey, basically 45 minutes long-the product of the limitations of what you could legitimately put on a vinyl record-and meant to be listened to from beginning to end. The time limit has ben amended given what digital recording affords, but I've stuck to that premise whether that's how people listen to it or not.

Did I answer the question? Probably not. Here's my evasive answer; it's just music. And to be fair, I don't really label or categorize the music I listen to beyond basic genres; it's either pop, or rock, or jazz, or country or classical, and I'll stick with that even if it's a bit blurry.

If you still need a better definition, here it is: Mood music flavored with the stylings of pop-rock-country-jazz.

Works for me.

What the hell happened to Rock 'n Roll?

I've noticed a lot of teeth gnashing of late over the perceived demise of Rock 'n Roll music. You know, the stuff we listened to growing up; lots of loud overdriven and distorted guitars, bass, drums, possibly keys, and a strutting frontman with flowing locks and a high pitched wail.

Think Foghat.

Now, in truth, if you were to peruse the artists at say CD Baby or on Soundcloud (I assume some are there), or any other bands sites and looked for such artists, you'd find them along with all their mutant brothers and sisters, for R&R had morphed into a thousand different genres and a thousand different variants. Like Jazz and Classical before it, R&R has grown old, or if you prefer, mature. And if the kids are digging the scene, then as far as new stuff goes, they're on their own because Radio, land of the dinosaurs, continues the time honored custom of regurgitating the 60's, 70's, and 80's, and parts of the 90's, such as Grunge. New bands? Come on?

Is some of this is the fault of the speedsters; the fleet fingered types who arpeggiate the fretboard at blinding speeds as well as those that tune down and jackhammer metal, in all its sub-genres? Is metal even R&R? Maybe. Like BeBop before it, the very virtuosity that draws some, deters others who find it mind-numbingly pedantic. Pentatonic Blues rifters are also plying their wares, as they have for as long as the Blues has existed, but like Jazz it has it's adherents and the rest ignore it. Wannabe guitar heroes play to the stereotypes they grew up with; some costumed; some not, but as with the rest of the R&R lexicon, much of it is been there, done that.

So is Rock dead?

A bit of this teeth gnashing is by the the very lions of Rock; Gene Simmons of Kiss comes to mind, who lament their lack of recognizable offspring, yet again; what will they do that you have not already done? And if you're a binder or alchemist of sounds that have R&R elements but are not exactly R&R, then are you R&R, or are you merely an appropriator? Will it be a hip new sound or an abomination to the heart of our R&R nation? Is there a ECM/Rock amalgamation that will stir the nation, a blend of Hip-hop-rock? Again, maybe. Of course, there's always New Country if you're pining for a kind of R&R nostalgia.

The truth is times change- don't you hate hearing that! What was once new is now old, and while R&R has had a very long run, it's foolish to think it won't fade as its predecessors have. That doesn't mean that people won't be rocking away, it just means it ain't no big thang.

If, however, you're longing for the next Zeppelin....

So what exactly do you do again?

It has been impressed upon me that I've got to market myself, promote the brand, etc. It makes sense and it's the world we live in. The question then becomes how? Generally, you're young when you start down this path and your audience is young too, but the idea that I can still market myself to the young is both counter-productive and to be honest, a little creepy.

The other route is based on the idea that you should market to those who share a love of the music of known artists that you sound like or emulate. That seems reasonable except that the groups and artists I like or whose music I've drawn inspiration from, their fans are probably not that into artists they've never heard of and aren't interested in hearing something that sounds like their favorite music when they can just go back and listen to the tracks from their favorite bands catalog. Why should I listen to someone who sounds like the Beatles when I can just listen to the Beatles?

The third option is the genre route; meaning which genre do I fit into. The problem there is the music I make is basically pop-rock stuff with some country and americana thrown in when I go acoustic. And pop-rock has fractured into literally a minefield of sub-genres from the genera of pop and rock, not to mention country, folk, americana, jazz, ECM, hip-hop, rap, and bluegrass. Somehow I have to decide where I fit in in this miasma of choices.

It makes my head hurt.

But that's the nature of music today. Mostly it's just music played on guitars, keyboards, and drums. I like to throw in dream-pop, electric folk, indie rock; I play a lot of different stuff, but I do have my own sound, which is important; sometimes more important than a particular description.

Still, we march on; we figure it out; we have day jobs.

Maybe I should focus on tee shirts?

Year Two of Mr Primitive's Revival

I survived my first year back in the world of music. I suppose if the first period of my work had been more widely experienced things might be different, but in truth I had no interest in that at that time. My only interest was in creating the music. My fascination was in seeing what I could come up with and once I was satisfied with it; it was done and it was time to move on to the next song. I disappointed Brian in not including him more and I was stubborn in wanting the songs to be a certain way. And once I began feeling like I had nothing new to say; that I was repeating myself, going over the same ground, I stopped.

The question of why bring it back, of why begin again, is in the idea of the worth of the material; are the songs any good? It took me a long time to believe that they are; that there is merit in the work. It's odd to come to terms with something like that. You would think that once something is done, that once it is finished-and you did this-it's good. I don't have any unfinished music from that period. If I liked something, I finished it. If I didn't, I erased it; this was all back in the pre-digital age for me.

I haven't the slightest idea what 2017 will bring or how much more money I'll need to spend to become the legend I was meant to be. I do know that more of the Seattle period will be released, as well as the Denver period, the early stuff from 1980 to 1984. There will be new stuff, for me, for everyone else it's all new. Maybe I should have been more proactive in the 80's, but what I did in the 80's wasn't quite 80's pop or rock, oddly more in line with later pop and rock idioms, and therefore problematic when it comes to marketing etc.

It may still be problematic today in that there is much to swim through, but I'm there on Spotify and Pandora and the other streaming services and maybe some will take a chance and listen. I plan on continuing to perform and put out music and I'll do what I can to get the word out, but I'm still some sorta old dude now and that matters. But you never know. You write, you record, you preform; it works out. Someday I leave my family my catalog and they look at it and wonder:

What do we do with this?