|
|
||
Dave's Top Eight
1. Jerry Reed...Revisited by Darrell Toney (reviewed 6/07) (5 Stars) Click title to purchase at CBD.com...click artist name to read Dave's Review. A CD will automatically fall out of the Top Eight after twelve months if no CD surpasses it before then.
|
Most Recent Articles
Why blog? (Three years and counting)
| ||
-----------June 9, 2007Buying DRM-Free Music From iTunes A few weeks ago, I wondered and inquired if EMI's new commitment to offer DRM-free music via iTunes would extended to EMI distributed labels, specifically Gaither titles. At the time, I got a "we don't know, but we'll let you know when we do" sort of response from Gaither's end. They never followed up with anything more than that. After reading an announcement today that all EMI/CMG music was now being offered DRM-free, I downloaded and installed the latest version of iTunes (7.2) and checked for myself. (7.2 is required to access DRM free music from iTunes. Earlier versions of iTunes software didn't believe in DRM-free music). Next, I went in search of Gaither label songs. I quickly found Big Sky by the Isaacs, Give It Away by the Gaither Vocal Band, and a few other titles. I didn't see any Homecoming titles, though, other than the original Homecoming CD.  Since my only copy of Homecoming is on cassette, I decided to test it out by downloading the DRM-free version and see how easy or difficult it would be to move the music to my iRiver (a portable listening device that isn't compatible with Apple's proprietary AAC file format).I was hoping it would be as simple as buying the album for $9.99, converting all the files to MP3 format inside of iTunes, and then simply dragging them to my iRiver using Windows Explorer. I'm pleased to report that it was precisely that simple. In a few minutes, "The Old Landmark" was streaming from my iRiver to a pair of connected Bose speakers on my desk and I was reliving the first time I ever heard that trend-setting recording more than fifteen years ago. Homecoming has held up well. I think it would be a huge hit again if it was just being released now. (Possibly more so, since many of the guest artists on this CD are no longer with us.) One minor complaint is that iTunes doesn't transfer the album art when converting to MP3, even though it's included in the original file. A greater complaint is that the bit rate was downgraded from 256 to 160 during the conversion process. (I found a place in iTunes to adjust the bit rate for imported CDs, but it didn't affect the conversion of downloaded files to MP3.) Obsessive folks will find it particularly annoying that iTunes lists Homecoming as a 2006 release. (Of course, if you're hyper organized, you're probably used to it by now!) I'm the type who wants my group and genre names to be consistent, and I like my MP3 files to be named the same order (Artist - Title.mp3). I'm don't care so much about other details like dates, who sang a guest vocal, etc. I suppose I fall in between the obsessive and "whatever" attitudes. Bottom line, though, is that iTunes really is offering DRM-free music now and it's not very complicated to get it to play on whatever device you prefer to use for listening. The same technique I used should work for every non-iPod device, and of course, if you use an iPod, you can skip the conversion step. Of course, burning to a standard CD continues to be an option as well. Labels: Advice, Observations May 19, 2007Real Record LabelsThere are so many "pay as you go" labels in Southern Gospel, it's good to be reminded from time to time how a real record label works. Some amateur artists don't know. When they're approached by someone with a recognizable name in the industry, they're so flattered to have been noticed that they gladly fork over several thousand dollars in order to be able to say they're "on a label." In contrast, a real record label pays the costs of production, duplication, royalties and marketing. This is shown as expense on the artist's account, but it isn't up to the artist to pay it back. It's up to the record label to sell enough copies at the retail level to put the project in the black. What most new artists and ordinary fans don't realize is that it's the sales of previously established artists that enables each label to take risks with upstarts. From the beginning, the artist can buy their own CDs at a discount to sell to their fans, so the group can go ahead and start making money from the CDs in this manner. They may pay a little more than actual cost, and the record label can make some money on the side in this fashion, but it's still a significant enough discount that the artist can make money as well. I know that ten years ago or so, for example, the Star Song label artists could buy their own CDs at an 80% discount off of the distributor's suggested retail price. This would be around $3.15 each on a $15.98 recording, plus they paid for shipping, which I assume was actual costs. This particular label was probably profiting 25 to 40 cents per CD or so on the pieces they sold to the artist (assuming the artist didn't over-extend and fail to pay their bills). Also, bankruptcy is a looming factor with any debut artist, because they ultimately succeed or fail at the whim of the concert attending public. This is a common misconception, by the way. Debut artists don't make money from retail CD sales initially. They make most of their money by playing gigs that they obtained as a result of making a heavily marketed CD on a label., and they pad this income with any CDs they sell at the gigs. This is why it's so important that an artist have a fairly good regional base of fans before signing with a major label. On the label side, manufacturing runs a couple of bucks per unit and royalties (assuming payment) run around 90 cents. If a label is shirking their obligation to pay royalties, the songwriters are more or less at their mercy. They can demand an audit of the label's books, typically, but that's time consuming and may not be worth the effort. Assuming everyone is honest and can be counted on to pay their bills, and IF the label recoups their expenses (and that's a huge IF when it's a brand new artist), the artist will share in all future profits from the sales of their product at the retail level. Labels: Advice May 14, 2007Church Music As A CareerI was reading a blog yesterday that dealt with the inadequacies of a seminary education with a major in church music. I've lost the blog link, unfortunately, but essentially this person was saying the music program at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY has become isolated and out of touch with what is going on in the real world of church music. I can’t speak to the seminary situation, but I can relate from the perspective of an individual who earned a Sacred Music degree from Gardner-Webb College (now “University”) in 1988. I expected to be equipped to at least lead a moderate sized church music program after four years. In my senior year, rather than giving me tips on churches that were looking for music leadership, my professors began pushing me to go on to seminary. Instead, I took a year off and then went to a secular graduate school for a Master’s degree in Music Theory where a more practical approach to prepping for the real world was included (even though there was no major focus on church music). In the 1980s, Gardner-Webb advised students planning to be church music leaders to take their Sacred Music program. Here’s the benefit of my hindsight talking: 1. In four years, I never once heard the names of the choral music companies I now use on a weekly basis…Lillenas, Word Music, and Brentwood-Benson. We did have one music reading session with music from Shawnee Press, as I recall. The focus was on classical repertoire exclusively...perhaps one in several thousand churches use this sort of music on a regular basis. 2. The extent of my “real world” training consisted of one semester of church music field work. I had several assignments over the course of one semester to discuss issues with an off campus minister of music, lead one of his adult choir's rehearsals, lead a youth choir rehearsal, lead a children’s choir rehearsal, and attend a handbell rehearsal. 3. In four years, at least a dozen classes were required for my "Sacred Music" major that had absolutely nothing to do with music or religion…French, Geology, etc. 4. I was required to attend a number of concerts on campus every semester. The Music Department brought in a pianist to play Beethoven, opera singers, people playing period instruments from the Baroque era, etc., which was well and good. However, when the student body entertainment committee brought in popular Christian artists of the day like David Meece, Truth, Randy Stonehill, and the Imperials to campus, THOSE particular "real world" concerts didn’t count towards the minimum number of concerts we were required to attend each year. I could continue, but I’ll try to summarize instead. The “liberal arts” approach to education, in my estimation, bloats the education process and adds to the already tremendously high expense of getting the information you need to know. It carries so much extra baggage that the very job I signed up and paid to learn about was neglected. I was never taught how to conduct an adult choir that sings with pre-recorded CD tracks, for example, something I now do on a weekly basis. The presumption was that I would use live musicians at all times. One student at Gardner-Webb presented an opera that incorporated a synthesizer. The school didn't even own a synthesizer in 1988, although electronic keyboards were already an obvious coming trend. To Gardner-Webb’s credit, they did teach me to play piano fairly well...using music and by memory. They didn’t teach me anything about improvising, though. I learned that mostly on my own while majoring in Music Theory during my graduate studies. They did teach me to sing better, how to direct a choir, and how to give piano lessons and voice lessons. They also familiarized me with a variety of instruments in the orchestra and taught me the basics of how to create sound on each one. I did learn a lot, but there was so much more that a “Sacred Music” degree should have included. Before you think I'm suggesting college is a waste of time, let me be clear. I HIGHLY recommend a college education to those considering a career in church music. Specifically, what I recommend is this: Get a Music Education degree at the undergraduate level rather than a degree in Sacred Music, even if you're 100% convinced going in that you plan to spend your life working in church music. I'll attempt to briefly explain why in the remainder of this post. The vast majority of churches are small. It's very likely you will be bi-vocational or if employed full-time, you'll probably be multi-tasked (like Music/Youth). With a Music Education degree, you can be immediately employed full-time teaching in the school system (with great benefits as a general rule and two months off every summer!). The little secret none of your Sacred Music college advisers are likely to mention is that the VAST MAJORITY of churches will hire you just as quickly with that Mus Ed. degree. Should you choose to go on to pursue a graduate degree at a seminary, they'll be just as happy to admit you to their program as well. A concentration in Sacred Music at the undergraduate level doesn't make any practical sense. Your employment options are too limited once you have the degree in hand. Labels: Advice, Observations April 19, 2007MY OPINION - FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH
Attention Radio,..
-----------ARE YOU PLAYING ENOUGH CURRENT MUSIC? We all love the oldies.. It's great to hear neat tunes from the 70s or 80s that bring back memories. But let's start playing the new and current songs more. The "blasts from the past" should be a treat on your station.. not the norm. Your mix of music should be heavy with songs that were released in the last 12 months. You should also be playing a fair amount of re-currents. (chart toppers from the last five years or so.) When your listeners tune in they should hear a current chart song within 10 minutes. They should hear a familar re-current in the same amount of time. Sure,.. if you play 5 golden oldie classics from the 60s,.. in a row,.. somebody will love it. I also guarantee.. many more will tune away. Remember.. programming music on a SG station is not an exact science. There is no perfect plan. However.. if you try this.. it will work. Your station will sound better,.. fresher.. newer. This kind of programming works in all formats. Here's a simple plan suggestion. This can be customized to fit your station. Divide your music into 3 categories: A - Current Songs B - Re-currents (hit tunes from the last 5 years) C- Oldies Then play them in a rotation like this: A, B, A, A, B, A, C ..and repeat. You might even want to sub-divide your "A" songs into the top ten, top twenty,..etc. That way the tunes your chart and report to publications.. really are the songs you are airing most. It's simple.. but it's a plan. You might be surprised at how many stations are working with no plan at all. The DJ walks into the studio and plays what ever he wants.. It happens everyday.. everywhere. PLAY CURRENTS! It's good for radio.. it's good for Southern Gospel! Let me know if I can help in any way, Chuck Peters Labels: Advice April 12, 2007My Take on "Quality" RadioAveryfineline recently posted his thoughts on "Quality" in radio programming. (I am starting to enjoy reading the reader's comments just as much as I do Avery himself). A comment by Tim was posted, to which I had to respond. Here's what Tim said: I program music across three formats and chart nationally for SG and AC. I find that SG music can me the easiest or the most difficult music to program. Boy, I resonate with what Tim had to say. I agree that if you really have an ear for the "entertainment factor," then you can take more risks in that direction and break molds, get creative and do some really incredible things for your station. However, If you don't have that ear of discernment, it would be best to stick to the stuff that will give you the brand identity and become a "top 40" SG station as opposed to another cheap sounding station. Bottom line is to play better music, which is subjective I know. But at the most basic level, even if you aren't a good judge at what "good" is, then follow the known success stories in SG. In time, you should recognize the patterns that create successful songs and you can recognize it in other, new, up-and-coming artists too. Don't try to scout out talent if you really aren't a good judge to begin with. (And I realize we all think we know best... this is where it's also very important to look at retail, the marketplace, and at solid research). We certainly need more of a Simon mentality in what we allow on the air. Too many of us are sweet and insipid when it comes to giving unknowns a chance. Everything these days is so watered down, everybody wins, everybody does a good job and nobody is a loser. And I've been so guilty of letting stuff slide through myself.... I repent. It has been said that SG audiences are a weird bunch. I agree. The audiences demand a lot of low quality stuff at times. It boggles the mind at what people will buy and go crazy over. But what's the cause of that mentality? Could it be that if you're spoon fed stale rice cakes all your life, you may learn to love it so much to a fault where you become turned off and repulsed by the smell of prime rib and roasted potatoes? Radio needs to lock up the rice cakes and save it for the times of famine and pestilence. (And in the words of Chuck Peters, let me know if I can help, too!) -Daniel Britt Labels: Advice, Observations, Other Blogs April 11, 2007So You Want To Be A Charting Station?
MY OPINION - FOR WHAT IT'S WORTHIt's something I have personally experienced. It's a problem I have overcome with some artists and record promoters. Charting and non charting status with the Singing News. Just so you know,.. my station does not chart for SN,.. but it's something I don't worry about much anymore. Some radio stations do have to deal with the concerns of their "non-charting" status. These comments (in italics) are from a Southern Gospel radio station General Manager.. who is a subscriber to one of my radio services: There is a big difference in radio service to charting and non-charting stations. We have applied to be a charting station with The Singing News on several occasions. I never receive a response on what we need to do to become a charting station, I just get ignored. Our station is again being reviewed to chart but I don't know what will happen, that's why I don't want you to use my name because I don't want to sabatoge my station. Artists have told me that it doesn't count if I chart for one of the other companies, the only one that matters to them is The Singing News. Some of the companies that send compilations have told me that they cannot send me a project since we don't chart. This puts me in a place that I do not always get music that is quality. Some of the songs on the charts we do not have for airplay because I don't have the money to go out and buy the cd. The companies that produce "less than quality" music are very easy to work with and send their compilations on a regular basis. So, I guess we air what we get. I don't know both sides of the story in this case.. but I do know that it happens. Non charting stations are treated as inferior in some situations. I know first hand what it means to feel that you are not "up to par".. because your station doesn't report to the magazine. I also know you can work around this problem. I would suggest that stations who are not allowed to "chart" for the SN.. should make themselves valuable in other ways. When I faced the dilemma.. I got on the phone, sent email, stayed in touch with the artists and record promoters,.. and most important,. I made sure my station sounded great! I worked hard and programmed professionally. I made noise.. and I tried to create a desire for air play on my station. Now I have pretty good record service.. and I still have not been invited to join the Singing News charting club. If an artist or promoter doesn't want to send product now,.. that's ok.. I have plenty of others to play. Make yourself valuable by being the best radio station you can be.. Don't rely on a "charting ticket" to get you where you need to be. Let me know if I can help in any way. April 10, 2007PR Photography: Spit Out Your Gum!I'm honestly not doing anything here but having a good laugh. No hard feelings are meant by this post; please don't read that into this. I opened a Press Release via email recently with this high-resolution, professionally photographed image of Eighth Day announcing a talent search to replace a member of their team. This image is what I saw:  A closer look, thanks to such high resolution, shows that Mr. D in the middle likes his chewing gum! -Daniel Britt Labels: Advice, Humor, In The News, Observations March 26, 2007Piracy, Copyrights, and Fair UseDaniel Mount posted an excellent article on the topic of audio piracy and how it affects Southern Gospel artists a couple of days ago. Click HERE for the full article. Since then, Adam Edwards has posted a response on his blog that's well worth reading. Mount interviewed Scott Fowler of Legacy Five, Gerald Wolfe of Greater Vision, and Daniel Ball of the Ball Brothers. A couple of quotes in Mount's article caught my attention. One of his questions was whether or not the artists were bothered when a portion of one of their songs was posted on the internet...a short clip, in other words. Here are their responses quoted directly from the article: Scott Fowler said that sharing “a clip of a song or video” didn’t personally bother him, though “sharing a song in its entirety is wrong.” Daniel Ball actually encouraged it, provided the person asked permission first: “If someone asks permission to post clips, we always say ‘yes.’ It’s free advertisement.” Gerald Wolfe, however, took a somewhat different approach. In response to a question asking if it made any difference to him if fans shared a clip of a video or song, he said: “The short answer to that question is ‘yes,’ but the entire answer is that my opinion of it doesn’t matter. It is a question of whether or not Christians follow the guidelines of Federal Copyright Law concerning transmitting material that is protected by the Copyright Law. Christians are admonished by scripture to obey and follow the laws of the land.” Wolfe's answer might be construed as "preachy," but I didn't take it that way. I actually agree with his logic. However, I don't agree with his interpretation of the law. I think Fowler's response was the most correct. You see, the problem with copyright law is that it isn't exactly concrete. Too many issues have been left up to the courts to decide and every time Congress re-writes the law, they make it more convoluted. There are fuzzy areas in Chapter 1, Section 107 of the code where "fair use" is defined. Let's look at that portion of the law for a moment... Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. These "factors" to "consider" serve to make a relatively simple portion of the law more difficult to understand. Why doesn't the law simply stipulate a percentage? What does "the nature of the copyrighted work" have to do with fair use? If it wasn't legal to share a portion of a song, it wouldn't be legal for me to quote a portion of Mount's article above for the purpose of commenting on it. Fair use provisions stipulate that I can, though. I can even quote otherwise copyrighted material BEFORE it's published. In his article, Mount pointed out that Ball's answer mentioned he preferred that fans ask permission before sharing a clip, but if it's fair use, then permission isn't required. Fowler said it didn't bother him, which, in my opinion is the correct response, because I understand the law to say it's "fair use" to share an insubstantial portion of a copyrighted work as long as I'm doing it for one of the reasons listed. Another point that is significant: Music publishers, broadcasters, artists, etc. are in the business of protecting their copyrights, as well they should. However, they sometimes to word the law as they'd LIKE for it to be rather than the way it actually is. Example 1a: If you are an artist attempting to record a song held by Gaither's copyright management company and you request a mechanical license, they will charge you a nominal "processing fee" that is over and above the royalties you actually owe. The law does not provide for publishers to collect any extra fees. In fact, mechanical royalties are typically set up so that the publisher splits all income with songwriters. Gaither's company believes it's fine to charge honest artists $10 more than the law requires on every mech license they issue. Most independent artists, not knowing their rights under the law, go along. The last time I dealt with Gaither's company in this capacity, I exercised a compulsory license so they couldn't do this. We were only running one short run of CDs (300 or so), and so I paid them in full and declared the CD "out of print" at that point so I wouldn't have to go through the hassle of sending them installments on the number of CDs we "distributed." All this could have been avoided if they hadn't tried to soak me with an added fee. Example 1b: If you are an artist attempting to record a song held by Word Music and you request a mechanical license, they will direct you to use the Harry Fox Agency. The Harry Fox Agency, in turn, will not deal with royalties on projects with small runs. They only license projects of 500 or more, so you have to pay a minimum if you use Harry Fox. The law does not provide for publishers to require a minimum. In fact, the law stipulates that you have the right to demand a compulsory license at the current statutory royalty rate and you can't be refused. Example 2: If you want to post a short clip on a website, your own or otherwise, the fair use section of copyright law CLEARLY gives you the right to do this as long as it is for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." However, when a person recently posted a 45 second clip of the Super Bowl copyright notice on YouTube where the ONLY purpose is for users to see it and leave comments, the NFL found it and demanded that it be removed. The game was more than two hours in length. The problem is that the general public doesn't know the law, or only know a version that's far from the truth. On one side of the coin, you have pirates who either don't care or will justify their actions due to poorly written copyright law. On the other side of the coin, you have "sheep" who blindly respect anyone who speaks with an air of authority and end up assuming some things are illegal that are in fact, legal. An official "notice" from a huge organization like the NFL carries the weight of authority to the point that YouTube sides with the NFL and removes what was a perfectly legal clip. By the way, that clip was posted to make a point that the NFL copyright notice is over-reaching the language of the law. Getting back to Mount's article, Scott Fowler was quoted in another area as saying: "I don’t know how prevalent audio piracy is in our business, but I assume it will only get more pervasive as our audience embraces current technology. With the advent of mp3 players, iTunes and computer technology, it is certainly easy to do." This is another comment with which I agree...but (you knew that was coming didn't you?)...I think it's incorrect for Fowler to include iTunes in his reply. iTunes does NOT make it easy to share music. iTunes doesn't make it particularly easy for legal users to do as they please with the music they purchase from iTunes. If I want to buy a song using iTunes and listen to it on my iRiver, for example, I can't simply copy it to my iRiver. I have to burn it to a CD, rip that CD as an MP3 file, and only THEN can I listen to the music I purchased as I choose. If I had a proprietary iPod, this wouldn't be a problem with iTunes, but then I'd have the same issue with any music I purchased in WMA format from Walmart's music download service. Of course, the pirates find ways around this...obtaining files illegally via a peer-to-peer (P2P) network or otherwise. Digital Rights Management (DRM) serves only to make life more difficult for LEGAL users. As soon as the music industry wises up and stops making life more difficult for people who are willing to pay for their products, the better off they will be. Also, MP3 players themselves don't really make it easier to abuse the law. MP3 players may be the reason why so many people choose to abuse the law, but the player is just a player. It doesn't provide the technology for grabbing illegal files...lay that blame at computers, P2P networks, and whoever first digitized a song. --------------- Required reading: Brad Templeton's Ten Big Myths About Copyright Also recommended: Visit the Electronic Frontier Foundation Labels: Advice, Other Blogs February 22, 2007Advice For Groups Choosing SongsA member of a regional Southern Gospel group wrote me today explaining his group's particular situation and asking for some advice. His group is based in an area that doesn't get a great deal of Southern Gospel. His local fans tend to have different expectations than Southern Gospel radio, or at least, he perceives his situation to be that way. He would like to please his local fans as well as the general Southern Gospel market, including SG radio. An added layer to his dilemma is that songwriters (naturally) tend to give their best songs to better known, national level artists first. He wanted to know what I thought his group should do in the future. My reply to him is below: I think attempting to balance the expectations of your local audience with the expectations of SG radio is a mistake. Focusing on your strengths is much more important, in my opinion. The first question you should ask when selecting a song to learn is, "Can we sing this song with as much appeal as any other artist who might attempt to sing it in the future?" Sure, you might have to concede that another group may do better with better vocalists. If there are several dozen groups you know who are more suited to delivering what the song requires, though, move on...no matter how much you like the song. That being said, it's still important to choose songs you enjoy performing. When a group is enjoying what they do, it carries over to the audience. This needs to be the case not only on stage, but in the studio as well. Pick songs you enjoy, but only after they've first passed the test of matching your strengths as singers. You mentioned your local audience's expectations. For a regional group, local expectations are much more important than national expectations. The following is something that illustrates this principle. I've determined this from my personal experience working in retail and being a customer as well: If someone calls a retail store when a cashier has customers in line, and that cashier is the only one in the store who can answer the phone, it's fine for them to go ahead answer the phone. What should happen next is they should politely tell the customer on the phone it will be minute before they can assist them. They should then put the caller on hold, and process the customer holding the cash first. The most important customer at any given time is the one trying to give you cash! My advice to you is similar. If you're going to cater to the expectations of anyone, cater to your local customers who are already buying your CDs. Your avenue to greater success down the road may not even lie with Southern Gospel radio. It may be Christian Country programming or something else entirely. Not to contradict the writings of St. Paul, but in music, pleasing your existing audience as much as you possibly can will serve you better than trying to be all things to all people. In summary, I think you'll go further by sticking with styles that: A) you do well, B) you enjoy doing, and C) already get the best response from your existing fans Hope that helps! Reading this over again, I would probably add that trying new styles is great. It's never good to get into a stylistic rut. However, it's not wise to try something new just for the sake of trying something new, especially if it totally fails to capitalize on your abilities as a group. For example, Brian Free & Assurance hit a home run with "Long As I Got King Jesus." This would never have happened if they had merely tried to please their existing fans, but more importantly, their performance succeeded because the song suited them and they clearly enjoy singing it. Fast forward a year, and BF&A's next CD had two more songs in a similar style ("Jesus Will Pick You Up" and "The Coming Of The King"), because they wanted to KEEP the new fans they had gained with the previous hit. That wasn't all, though. They also took a new sound for a test drive with "If It Takes A Valley," and it did pretty good for them. This is how a group retains existing fans while adding new ones. In the case of "Long As I Got King Jesus," it wasn't a matter of waiting on a songwriter to write something new they could use. Instead, they took an existing song and re-invented it. That might be a way out of the "songwriters don't send us their best songs" dilemma. Labels: Advice, Observations 
| |||
Who's Blogging?
Contributors
Blog Search
Talk Back
Useful Links
Discuss SG
Quicklinks
Advice, Audio, Audio, Audiobooks, biography, CCM, CD Reviews, Concert Reviews, Discographies, Dove Awards, DVD Reviews, Fan Awards, History, Housekeeping, Humor, In The News, Interviews, Limericks, Group Members, Movies, NQC, Obituary, Observations, Odds And Ends, Old Clips, Other Blogs, Other Forums, Podcasts, Praise And Worship, Sad But True, Shopping Tales, Singing News, Song Clips, TV Shows, XM News, YouTube,
Archives
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
Copyright
- All textual content posted at Musicscribe.com and subfolders is owned and copyrighted by David Bruce Murray unless otherwise indicated. No reprints may be made without the permission of the author, except as provided by US Copyright law. Permission is granted to reprint articles on other non-commercial websites only as long as the following conditions are met:
1) All articles must be reprinted in full with no editing or additions
2) The words "by David Bruce Murray" must be displayed prominently with each reprinted article.
3) A link to the original article at Musicscribe.com must accompany all reprints. If your site meets these requirements, you may reprint articles without requesting additional permission from the author.The copyright of all content posted by Musicscribe.com contributors other than David Bruce Murray is retained by the original authors.