After taking February off to write more songs, I've gone back to my recording project -- whatever it is.

I now have Reaper project files for the 18 songs under consideration, along with MIDI instrumental parts. I've started doing rough mixes of these and adding drum programming where I think it's appropriate. The point of this exercise is to create background music for each song that captures how I want it to sound and which will serve as a better metronome for recording.

For people who are capable of recording simply by setting up a mic and hitting the 'go' button, I'm sure this sounds like a lot of work for tracks that will (mostly) eventually be thrown away. It works for me, though, as a way of prototyping arrangements and explaining what I'd like to hear to anyone who might feel like collaborating.

It will probably take another week of 'spare time' playing around to get this finished and then I can start some recording.

One of my Christmas presents was the latest upgrade to Band-in-a-Box. Yesterday I had my first opportunity to experiment with it.

I find that sometimes I have a good idea of the style I want for a song and can pick it by name or description and have it be a decent fit. Other times I filter by attributes such as tempo, rhythm, musical genre...then audition the recommendations and choose by ear. That can be surprising as demonstrated by the fact that one of my songs from yesterday sounds best to me with a Bossa Nova style. I didn't expect that.

By the end of the day I had backing tracks for eleven of the songs I wrote during 2011. This is obviously progress, even if the description and location of the goal remains elusive.

Since my (not so recent) most recent post here I've done nothing practical on this project but I have given it a lot of thought and talked over some details with friends.

One person, relatively new to filk, heard me out about the plan and immediately responded with, "But if it doesn't cost anything, nobody will believe it's worth anything." [Sigh...depressingly insightful, I think.] (Combining that with the illegal download problem faced by the music industry, I'm beginning to think that the only way for a song to be appreciated is if it's priced at a million dollars and is very easy to pirate.) OTOH, I'd already considered the devaluation effect, so it was only a little depressing.

The more telling point, though, is about time being money. Since I don't have an outside employer, even spending nothing at all on production is expensive in terms of opportunity cost compared to software development. (Programming may not be providing much at the moment, but the possibilities still far outweigh the potential for me making money at music -- which are laughable at best.) My thinking has been conditioned by a life of always having an OK middle-class job, which meant that my free time could, in fact, be free. I have to get it through my head that such is not currently the case.

Talk to me after the lottery win.

This question touches on philosophy about why people make music and perform it.

The last thing I posted included a list of songs, selected for possible inclusion into the project. For the moment, let's assume a CD's worth of material will make the cut, that being 17 or 18 songs. When you have assembled a track list (or if you were going to do so) how much consideration do you give to the preferences of your potential audience?

As an extreme example, let's say there's a song you like but which doesn't seem to appeal to others. Does it get included?

(I've said, as a generality, that I write for myself and perform for others. I'm not sure how much that's truth and how much it's a negotiating position.)

Inevitably the conversation has to turn to specifics. I mentioned having a lot of songs, but are there enough that I'd want to release for this to even be worthwhile?

Here are things written since the set list for "Rain On The Sand" was finalized and which either get played frequently or seem like they should be included for other reasons. I've sorted them roughly in order of preference. People who don't go to Toronto-area house filks will have little idea what I'm talking about…but that's OK. :-)

( List of titles )
Another consideration is that five of those are connected to the story that began with "Burning Ages" / "Powders And Signs" (which were on the RotS CD). One interesting idea would be to save those until a "concept album" was an option. The counter-arguments are: that the earlier two already have official versions, and it would mean dropping "Don't Call It Magic"…which might not be good for my health.

Five of us had dinner together last night and the subject of free music came up for discussion. There were a variety of points of view expressed including:
- albums have been vinyl records, or tapes, or CDs, but the common denominator is that they should be something physical

- lowering production costs and passing on savings is fine but giving things away devalues them

- since the music is good -- in that person's opinion, the 'artist' should get some reimbursement for creating it (Hmmm...maybe I'm misremembering that one. Last night it sounded a little less illogical and fantasy-based.)

- there's too much work involved and therefore giving away the result equates to a waste of time

There may have been other points but I think most of them, at least, were mixtures of, and variations on, those. It was also pointed out that what I'd find acceptable and appealing should not be considered the norm for filkers, or music fans, or human beings generally. I guess that's true; individuality aside, I live in a world with things like Linux, PostgreSQL, and the Apache web server exist.

I made a reference in one of my comments to the historical oddity of Grateful Dead tape trading. The understanding among participants was that the spread of music recorded at live shows was just fine as long as it was for free. You were allowed to ask for blank tapes or the equivalent to compensate for the material you were using to make copies for others, but nothing more. This kind of arrangement is also behind some Creative Commons license models that give permission for non-commercial use of software, pictures, or other products of creativity. The idea is that, if the 'artist' isn't making money from the transaction, nobody should.

In the interest of promoting unlimited distribution, I would want to avoid that position entirely for this project. If someone wanted to give away copies, that would be fine; if someone charged for them, that would be no less fine. My reasoning is that the amount of money involved would be trivial at best and not worth the energy required to care about it.

In addition, I have a strong belief that people who want money in return for their efforts are entitled to ask for it...and the way a paid service competes with a nominally equivalent paid one is through effort. There was mention of leaving copies on freebie tables at cons, but blank CDs, cases, and printed inserts have costs. Recovering those, plus something for assembly, transportation, and possibly some 'incentive' seems perfectly reasonable.

Why would someone buy something they can create by themselves for free? Maybe because convenience is worth some price...?

Though not *necessarily* part of the Un-CD idea, something else I've been thinking about is how collaboration occurs. For "Rain On The Sand" my method might best be described as passive acceptance of happy accidents. Some people learned that I was planning a CD and said they'd like to do stuff to help. When I had a set of scratch tracks, I passed them around to the volunteers and let them tell me where they thought they could add an instrument or a vocal. While mixing, I used or didn't use or modified what I'd been given to suit the song as I wanted it to sound.

I guess it's more normal to have a pre-conceived idea of how a song should be arranged and then approach contributors for specific tracks. On the other hand, there are a whole lot of better musicians in filk than me, even more so when it comes to knowing their own capabilities.

So, how about the idea of dumping scratch tracks on a server and inviting anyone interested to take part?
(And for the Un-CD case, providing more contributor copies is a *benefit*.)

The song's style would be dictated to a great degree by the scratch track and I would maintain the same final say over what and how much got used in the official release (although, if the idea caught on, alternate mixes could be...interesting). The idea appeals to me as an extension of something that worked well previously. Any estimates of the probability of the approach going all to hell once more people were involved? :-)

It comes to mind that perhaps I should explain in better detail why I'm thinking of doing this. I've been told that defining requirements is a good thing. (Though, as a software developer, my experience is that I'm more likely to be presented with a functional unicorn than a functional specification.)

1) Writing songs is a given. For whatever reason, it has progressed from being an occasional bad habit into an addiction.
2) Having written them, I would like people to have an opportunity to hear them. Maximizing the number of people who have that opportunity is a primary goal.
3) Since performing is not my favourite activity, that means 'studio' recordings are by far the likeliest way to provide exposure.
4) Making money is so far out of the question that it's silly. The amount of time required for the recording and production work can only be justified on the basis of an interesting hobby.
5) Recovering direct out-of-pocket costs is also unlikely, which means that another goal is reducing expenses that don't contribute to the hobby aspect.
6) I enjoy recording, mixing, and arranging. I don't enjoy marketing, selling, and promotion. Designing a project to emphasize the first set while avoiding the second set is good.
7) Some of the best moments in creating the CD were hearing and incorporating tracks that other people provided. I want to avoid creating barriers to that kind of collaboration.
8) I'd like to do something new for the purpose of learning what works and what doesn't related to this concept...and, if it doesn't work out so well, at least there's not a great amount at risk.

Although a major requirement at this point is avoiding the need for pressing and printing a CD, I don't want to take consideration of that format out of the conversation. For people who don't have high-speed net access, want a lossless format, or who still like physical disks -- me, for example -- I would still want to maintain CD compatibility. That means things like total run length and song sequencing matter. So does cover art, liner notes, credits, and the rest of the standard add-ons. However it happened, there would still be a mastering process even if it were just me doing it --though, that "extra pair of ears" thing is a really good idea.

I'm a product of album-format music production and living in a "shuffle mode" universe is probably not going to change that.