If you’re into writing royalty free music for others, one area where you might get some requests for work is the area of TV themes. Sure, you might not get to write for NBC’s big new hit but certainly their are local PBS stations that could be looking for music. Even so, I wonder what kind of job it could be given the state of TV themes in today’s industry. I mean let’s face it, they are virtually becoming extinct.

Sure, there are still some decent ones like Big Bang Theory, written by Bare Naked Ladies, NCIS and NCIS LA, but then you’ve got stuff like Perception, which is a great show, but the theme is like one note? I mean what’s with that? And there are a lot of shows that have gone the minimalist route. Some don’t even have any theme at all. So I really have to ask.

What happened to the great TV themes?

Let’s be honest, throughout the history of TV there have been some great themes. Many of them so memorable that we still sing them today. And it’s not like TV themes never went through changes before. Remember the period of time when every TV theme was turned into a hit record like Happy Days, Welcome Back Kotter and the theme from Laverne and Shirley, “Making Our Dreams Come True” sung by Cindy Grecco?

Then we have the instrumental themes from Mike Post, like Hill Street Blues, Rockford Files and so on. They all became hit records too.

And who could forget the lavish years with themes like Dynasty, Dallas, Knots Landing, Fantasy Island and all the other great orchestral works?

Now we get “Men”. Thank God next season is its last. The show is as bad as the theme. At least the new Hawaii Five O kept the original theme song. That would have been a crime had it not.

What do you think caused this changed to minimalist themes? Well, I have a couple of theories. Granted, this is all speculation and nobody will ever know for sure but I think they have merit.

Theory 1 – It’s no secret that TV is more about commercials than it used to be. I remember watching shows like Combat and Outer Limits as a kid. Do you know those episodes were over 50 minutes long? I don’t think there was more then 6 or 7 minutes of commercials in an hour long show. Today, an hour show is about 42 minutes. Some are even shorter. So I think in order to get as much show in as possible in order to accommodate the commercials, the TV theme songs have been cut down or cut out completely.

But there’s more to it than just that.

Theory 2 – This is actually linked into theory 1. Because TV is bigger business than it’s ever been, by cutting down on the themes, you’re also cutting costs. I mean let’s face it, you’re not paying the same amount of money for a 5 second theme as you are for a minute long theme.

Do you know the “Crazy Like A Fox” theme, with opening dialogue, is 1:22? That’s insane by today’s standards. The NCIS LA theme song is a little over 20 seconds.

In short, it all comes down to money.

Where does that leave us?

Not in very great shape I’m afraid. Now maybe with PBS broadcasts you won’t run into this problem. After all, there are no ads so shows can be longer and at the same time, themes can be longer.

In fact, a longer theme means that there is less show they have to produce. But still, if these shows want to be “in” with the times, they might opt for shorter themes anyway. After all, they seem to be the new cool thing. How short and stupid can you make your theme?

Think I’m kidding? Have you ever watched “Hot In Cleveland?” That is one short and stupid theme. Same with “The Exes” which is coming back soon I hope. Don’t get me wrong. I love both these shows and “Hot” is an outright scream. Betty White is funnier than ever at 92. But my God, can you at least put a little effort into your theme song?

I guess you’ve pretty much figured out that I don’t like the direction TV themes have taken. It really does take away from the available work. I mean who needs a composer when all you have to do is get a bunch of guys into the studio and tell them to play a C chord and they’re done?

Oh trust me, that day is coming. Nothing would surprise me any longer. That’s why it’s so refreshing to see that the Doctor Who theme hasn’t changed much in all these years. Yeah, the arrangement keeps changing but it’s still Doctor Who. Oh, by the way, can’t wait for that to come back too.

But like I said earlier, throughout history TV themes have constantly changed. You could almost identify the era of television by the themes that were on at the time. And each one had its good points, until now. Now I see nothing but “let’s get this out of the way so we can cram in more commercials and maybe a little more show.”

It’s disgusting.

What do you think? Do you like where TV themes are going? Were they nothing but an annoyance to you? I would hope, as a composer, the answer is no. After all, this IS what we do. So what happens if the day comes when there are no themes at all anymore? Some shows don’t have them. I can’t think of any off the top of my head because it’s 6:34 in the morning right now, but there are those shows that have no opening theme. They just go right in.

Personally, I think it’s a crime. TV themes have always been such a big part of our culture and now the powers that be are slowly taking that away from us. Go on, call me a dinosaur if you want. But some things are sacred.

TV themes should definitely be on that list.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

We’ve seen it, or should I say, heard it a million times. You’re watching TV and there’s a scene with a man and a woman. They stare into each other’s eyes. Suddenly, the saxophone music starts playing and off come the clothes. What is it about all these scenes that brings out the sax? Why is THAT instrument so associated with sex? For that matter, just what IS sexy music anyway?

I have to admit, this is something that has puzzled me for ages. So I did a little research (very little, trust me) and essentially what I came up with makes sense to a degree. But it doesn’t explain modern day reaction to the sound.

Back in the early days of the saxophone, the instrument was essentially created to fill a void in music. That void went on to inhabit the jazz club scene which just happen to be sleazy and unconcerned with the morals of the outside world. So in essence, the sax was indeed a dirty instrument, literally.

Okay, that’s all well and good for those of us (not me. I mean I’m old but I’m not that old) who grew up during that time period.

But what about the rest of us? I had to look this stuff up to even know it existed. Yet, when I hear that sax starting to play during the tawdry scene that’s about to take place I admit to feeling something. And I’ll leave it at that.

Is is the combined visual along with the music? Are we brainwashed from an early age (cause let’s face it, this stuff is all over the place in cinema and TV) to watch this and respond to it? Is is simply the way we’ve been wired?

We could ask the same question of any kind of emotion that music seems to evoke in us. What is sad music? What is happy music? What is exciting music? And why is it not always the same?

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about.

Just recently I watched Les Miserables. The music in that movie was absolutely amazing. And while we often associate slow violins ans strings with sadness, the finale of that movie, which had me going through a box of tissues, was not slow violins and strings. It was a pretty grand orchestra letting it all hang out. The music in and of itself was not sad. But combine it with what was going on, on screen, and you have some pretty emotional stuff.

I personally find it fascinating the way humans react to music. There is almost no rhyme or reason for it. After all, it’s just a bunch of instruments making sound. It’s not like somebody is taking a club to our loved ones or beating us or tickling us to make us laugh. It’s just sound. And yet these sounds, made by all these different instruments, evoke such powerful emotions. It boggles my mind sometimes.

Okay, so great. We know that music can make us feel something. We don’t exactly understand why but we know it. So how can we, as composers, take advantage of this? Oh come on, admit it. That’s what we do. We prey on the weak emotions of our listeners to make them love what we do. I mean if the music doesn’t make you feel something, ANYTHING, what good is it?

And yes, all music makes us feel something. I’m not suggesting that everything we feel from a given song is good, but everything makes us feel something, even if it’s disgust. Whenever I listen to Doom Metal I feel like I’m in hell, literally. That’s some pretty scary stuff, some of it.

Oddly, not everybody feels the same thing when listening to a piece of music. While I’m crying my eyes out listening to Les Miserables, my wife is waiting for the torture to end. Go figure.

But back to the question. How can we tap into this? Well, in order to tap into our audience’s emotions, we have to study the history of emotion in music. We don’t have to necessarily understand why certain sounds make us feel a certain way, but we do have to know that it exists. Otherwise, we’re blindly groping in the dark.

And we can’t go by how music makes us feel personally because we may not be in the majority. I again point to my Les Miserables example between my wife and I. Two completely different reactions to the same score there.

You have to look at what the masses traditionally reacted to over the ages. Yes, you need to look at stereotypes much of the time. So we know that sax music is sexy. We may not like it. We may think it’s cheesy or overdone or even vulgar, but we have to recognize it. Because if a client comes to you and says that he has a video of a guy and girl getting it on and he needs some real sexy music, you’re not going to try to reinvent the wheel are you? Even if you try to go against the grain and come up with something that you “think” is suitable, will the audience feel the same way if they don’t hear that sax playing?

Sure, you can go off experimenting on your own for your own personal musical use. But when it comes to doing a job and a client wants something very specific, you better have a play book of emotional soundscapes so that you can easily come up with what that client needs. Otherwise, it’s going to be a long project.

We may never truly understand why certain sounds evoke certain emotions. I sure as heck don’t get it. I feel it. And it seems like I’ve felt it most of my life. But I can’t put my finger on why certain things get to me the way they do, why I prefer major keys over minor keys, why I prefer orchestral music over African music or why I prefer women vocals over men vocals.

I may not get it. But I sure as heck better recognize that these prejudices exist if I’m going to make it in the royalty free music business.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

Are you a gear freak? If somebody called me one I really couldn’t argue with them. It boggles my mind how much stuff I’ve accumulated in just the last year. In fact, it’s downright scary. But how much of this stuff do you REALLY use? Be honest now. Isn’t it but a fraction?

I open up Cubase 7 in the morning and bring up a VST. That process alone is mind boggling. When I first bought the DAW, the list of VSTs was maybe an inch or two long. There was very little there. Now, I can scroll for pages. It’s gotten to the point where I have to type in the name of the VST I’m looking for or I’ll be there forever.

Of course when you start doing that, especially when you’ve got hundreds of these things, there is no way you can possibly remember the name of each VST that you downloaded. Okay, I can’t. Maybe some braniac out there can. But for me, there’s a handful of VSTs that I can name off the top of my head and those are the ones that I pretty much use all the time.

In fact, here is the “short” list of my main synths.

Battery 4
ABSynth 5
FM 8
Massive
Synthmaster 2.6
Zebra 2

And then there is all the EWQL stuff which comes under the Play VST and all the Native Instrument stuff not already mentioned that comes under either Kontakt 5 or Reaktor 5.

That’s pretty much my meat and potatoes for music production. Yeah, I’ve got some odd ball synths and other VSTs for special use like Revitar 2.0 or Strum for guitars. And if I strained my brain I could probably think of maybe 20 more VSTs that I sometimes use, but for the most part, this is it. I could chuck just about everything else I own and probably wouldn’t miss it. Okay, maybe I’d miss my XWOF. That is one really cool soundscapes designer. But I digress.

And it doesn’t just end with the sound producers. There’s all the effects processors. I’ll be honest, I can’t even begin to tell you what I have as I use to little of it.

For the most part, I use Curve EQ, a compressor, QL Spaces for reverb, a delay, and that’s about it as far as on a regular basis. I don’t go overly crazy with effects and processing. Oh sure, every once in a while I’ll use a filter or some overdrive, especially on horns, and on the rare occasions that I do vocals I’ll use autotune, but my effects rack is woefully underused. And the list of things I have could also choke a horse.

Why do we do this? Is there a reason why we have so much stuff and yet use so little of it?

I have a few theories on this that I’d like to share in the hope that maybe we can break this cycle of insanity. It’s probably futile but if you don’t try, you never know.

Recently, I wrote an article “What To Do When The Novelty Wears Off” in which I talked about how we get bored and one of the things we do to try to alleviate that boredom is to buy new stuff. But you know what happens. Either the stuff gets old or it was never really any good to begin with and we go back to the stuff we used to use because it was just better.

I’m actually thinking of plunking down $100 for a limiter. Why? Because it can withstand an 8 db pump? Like I’m ever going to pump up my music THAT much? And you know what’s going to happen if and when I get it. I’m going to have to PROVE that it was worth the investment. So I’m going to start cranking up my music to the sky. It’s madness, pure madness. The limiter I have is fine. I don’t need a new one.

Another reason that we have so much stuff, besides boredom, is because we want to feel like we’re ready to handle any musical situation that might come up. We don’t want to be caught with our pants down. So by having all this stuff, it’s kind of like a security blanket. We’ll probably never use 90% of it, but it just makes us feel good knowing it’s there. Again, it’s pure madness.

Then of course there are those of us who are just gear freaks. We’re collectors. If it’s new, we have to have it. If it’s old and we don’t have it, we have to have it. If it hasn’t been invented yet, we’ll beg somebody to create it. I’m still waiting for a vocal box that, when you sing into it, it will reproduce your voice in the quality and tone of a chosen vocal performer. I’m still waiting for my Billy Joel in a box. There has got to be a way to do this with as far as technology has come. Really, we’re like crack addicts.

I’m trying to battle against all of these things. While I’m not in any way winning this war, I have gotten a little better. I don’t download stuff as regularly as I used to. It used to be a daily thing with me. Yes, daily. Now I’ll download something new maybe every 2 to 4 weeks or so. I’ve gotten a lot better.

Contrary to popular belief, he who dies with the most toys does NOT win. When we die, we all leave this world with nothing. So why the madness?

I want you to do me a favor. Actually, do yourself a favor. Go through all your stuff. If there’s anything in it that you really don’t need and know you’ll probably never use, get rid of it. I’ve already done this with a few of my VSTs that, quite honestly, sounded like crap.

You will feel a lot better about yourself and your stuff if you do. At the very least, it’ll be a lot easier to find things the next time you start working on a project and have to sift through a ton of sound generation modules.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

The music business can drive you crazy if you let it. There are more things to think about than you can shake a stick at. One topic can be studied for months, if not years. At what point, in your quest to create the “perfect” song, do you reach that point of diminishing returns unless you literally turn everything over to a professional because there is just nothing more that you can do? In this article, I’m going to give you just a few examples of what I’m talking about.

Just today, I was looking into limiters. That’s right, limiters. Now you’re probably wondering what sparked this bit of research. Well, it actually started a while ago when a forum that I belong to sent me an email regarding a test that they did on various limiters. The test that did was rather exaggerated and probably something you wouldn’t do under normal use. But it was done to prove a point.

Essentially what the owner of the forum did was take all these limiters and run recordings into them that were boosted by, hang onto your hats, 8 db. Okay, that’s a little extreme. I don’t think I’ve ever boosted anything more than 3 or 4 db. So 8 is really pushing it. But like I said, it was done to prove a point.

What was that point?

It appears that almost all the limiters tested, with the exception of one, displayed very noticeable artifacts when limiting these recordings that were really boosted beyond normal tolerance levels. The one limiter that performed, not only the best, but incredibly well, was the Voxengo Elephant. Now I listened to the results myself with headphones on so I could really hear every little bit of badness and the Voxengo was clean as a whistle. I couldn’t hear a bit of distortion or artifacts.

Now, this limiter also happens to go for over a hundred bucks, which is over a hundred bucks more than my Limiter6 goes for. And so far, under normal use, my Limiter6 has been doing a more than adequate job simply because I don’t push my music all that much.

So the question I have to ask myself, if I’m going to invest over a hundred bucks into a piece of software that is really just one small piece of my musical puzzle, is will this limiter REALLY make that big a difference in my music or am I just throwing $100 out the window?

What I would like to hear is an A/B between Voxengo and Limiter6 on a “normal” track to see if there was a noticeable difference. My gut tells me that there won’t be. But there’s really no way to tell unless I test it. Unless they have a trial period, kind of hard to do. I will look into it, but the difference would have to be considerable for me to invest that much money into a limiter. Remember, this is still a PC based setup. This isn’t a professional studio. So how much can we really improve the quality of our production when there are so many more pieces to the puzzle?

Like what?

Well, just sticking with the theme of sound processing, what about compressors? Voxengo also has a compressor that is supposedly better than most of the other ones out there. Will that compressor make a big difference compared to the ones that came with my Cubase 7?

Then of course there is EQ. Supposedly, a “higher” quality EQ has a better sound in that it can bring out the highs and lows better or bring them down if that’s what you’re looking to do. Again, how much difference will a “premium” EQ make compared to my Curve EQ that came with Cubase 7?

What if you record vocals? Sure, a better microphone will have better dynamic response. But how great are you going to get your vocals if your home studio doesn’t have a sound proofed room with pads and you don’t have the best vocal processors like they do in a professional studio? How much difference will you hear, under less than optimal conditions, between a $100 mic and $500 mic?

And the comparisons can go on and on forever. But I’ll stop here.

Now, multiply all this by the pieces of equipment and/or software that you have in a home studio. Before you know it, you can easily spend thousands of dollars. I’ve already gone over 10K in hock and I absolutely don’t have the best equipment possible. I have very good equipment for a home studio, but in comparison to a pro studio, it’s a drop in the bucket.

And while it all comes down to money, actually it doesn’t and I’ll get to that next, how much money will it take, again, for a home studio, to make a “real” difference? I don’t think anybody really has the answer to that question as far as putting together a home studio that can produce a professional quality recording suitable for radio play, if it’s even possible.

What I said about it not only being about money, upon reflection, is very true. The best piece of equipment in the hands of somebody who doesn’t know how to properly use it isn’t going to do as good a job as in the hands of a pro.

In other words, a pro engineer, in MY studio, will get a better sound out of my songs than I will using the SAME equipment. There is no question about that simply because he knows more “tricks” that I do. He knows how to get every last drop of goodness out of a mix. I don’t. At least not like he does.

So eventually, you’re going to keep spending more and more money and reach a point where the value you’re getting out of the money you’re spending is diminishing with each purchase until you reach a point where nothing you do makes your music sound any better either because the equipment for a home studio can’t get better or your ability to use it as reached its peak.

My advice is to get “decent” equipment and then learn how to use it the best you can.

Otherwise, you’re just going to keep sinking more money into what is essentially a black hole.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

So you’re really into this composing and recording stuff. You just built a brand new PC based studio. You’ve got all the toys; new keyboard, digital audio workstation, tons of VSTs, studio monitors, and on and on. You dive headlong into it and are having the time of your life. It’s all so new and exciting, just like a new girlfriend.

Yeah, that’s all well and good. So what do you do when that new girlfriend turns into a wife of 2 or 3 years and the novelty wears off? What do you do when those VSTs just don’t do it for you anymore?

Well, you’ve got several choices, but none of them really address the real problem. I’ll get into that eventually but first let’s get into a few band aids to cover up the wound.

One thing you can do is simply buy new toys. And let’s face it, that’s never a problem. There is always new stuff coming out. I’ve been regularly buying and/or downloading free software going on a good year now. Just recently I to some AAS stuff, a new drum VST and even a new synth, cheap as the thing is. It helps for a while but it doesn’t fix the real problem. Usually, in a week or two, depending on the complexity of the toy, the novelty is gone. Heck, even Sonigen’s modular synth didn’t hold my attention for more than a month or two.

New toys are not the answer.

Another thing you can do is try writing and recording different styles of music. Of course this is a problem if you have the kind of job that doesn’t allow you that kind of flexibility. Some people can’t do anything but write dance tunes all day long. I am sure after a while that will get kind of dull. Either way, the new thing you’re doing is going to eventually get old too. So that’s not the answer either.

Next on the list of bandages you can use is simply taking a break from the whole thing. At one time, I was so burnt out from writing that I took from 2004 to 2008 off. Five whole years I didn’t write a thing. I couldn’t. I didn’t even want to look at a keyboard. In fact, I was convinced that I was done writing. But that wasn’t so much out of the novelty wearing off but out of frustration of having absolutely no success. After a while, no matter how much you love to write, lack of success can wear on you.

So taking some time off may help for a while, but it still doesn’t treat the actual problem. See, the novelty isn’t what should matter in the first place. Do you think Mozart had novelty when he wrote? There as nothing back then but pen and paper. You didn’t have cool new toys to keep you interested. So what kept Mozart going? The answer is really simple.

True love for music.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that if you get tired of writing it’s because you don’t have a true love for music. I’m not talking about wanting to take a day off because you’re tired. I’m sure Mozart didn’t write every single day.

But if you reach a point where you wonder if you even want to do this anymore, that means there is a deeper problem. It doesn’t mean you don’t love your music. What it means is you haven’t yet discovered how MUCH you love it.

Sometimes we don’t realize how much something means to us until we lose it or are in danger of losing it. In my case, I needed to be away from my music long enough to realize that something was missing in my life. It took 5 years, but when I realized that music really was my life, I no longer needed to be successful with it. I just needed to do music for music’s sake.

In the year since I’ve been putting together this site, I can’t remember one day that I took off from doing something musical unless I had something else that I had to do that couldn’t be put off. Sometimes life will do that to you. But I never willingly said, “I don’t feel like doing music today.”

My toys are just ways to express my music now. They are neither boring or exciting. They have just become tools to get the music out. That’s the way it should have always been. And the only reason I even get any new VSTs today is because I hear something that I feel I can incorporate into a musical idea. Most of the time, I don’t even try to program the synths anymore, which used to be a lot of fun for me. Now, I just pull up the preset I need in order to get the sound I’m looking for. It’s all a means to an end.

But the music…that’s what’s at the heart of it all. That’s all that ultimately matters. It’s not even about having hit records anymore. I gave up on that dream last year when I finally realized how much I love just writing.

Some people are lucky. They know right away that their love for music is strong and they never look back. They live their music every single day. My choir director’s husband practices his trumpet almost daily. He plays out when he can.

My friend Paul plays his flute any time he sits down to listen to some old records. He’s had that flute since he was a kid. I think he just turned 60. It’s amazing that thing is still in one piece.

Point is, you will know when the day comes when you discover that you REALLY love your music. When that day comes, toys won’t matter. Writing different kinds of music won’t matter, though you won’t have any problem doing just that if the mood strikes you. Taking a break won’t even be a consideration, at least not for more than a day or two.

And when THAT day comes, you’ll realize that this is as happy as you can possibly be.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

If you’re an old man like me, you probably remember the Flying Saucer Records started by Dickie Goodman back in the 50s with his double sided hit “The Flying Saucer Parts 1 and 2.” That one recording kicked off a whole craze of novelty records where essentially what the artist did was mix in spoken word with snippets of other artists songs. And yes, before you ask, he was sued for copyright infringement. But his artistry was the early use of sampling, though most people wouldn’t think of it in that manner.

Sampling has become a big thing in today’s music. It has also been the hot topic of many a debate as to whether or not it should be allowed without having to get permission from artists for every little sample that you use. I mean where do we draw the line? If we literally take one note from John Doe’s XYZ recording and run it through phase shifters, flangers, filters and delays, making it virtually unrecognizable, do we need to ask that artist’s permission to use that sample?

Personally, I don’t do any sampling of my own. I only use samples that come with the products that I purchase, such as all the string samples that come with my EWQL Hollywood Strings. But wait a minute. What about those samples? They WERE played by REAL musicians. Were they compensated? I don’t mean were they paid to play their instruments. I mean were they given royalties? After all, without their contributions we wouldn’t have half the music that we have today. You’d have a ton of people, like myself, who couldn’t afford to hire a real orchestra.

A lot of what passes for okay today we kind of take for granted. But the truth is, in a different world, we might not be so fortunate. The days of having to create all your own sounds are over. We don’t have to take out our Prophet 5 and tweak all those knobs until we finally got something that we liked. Now all we have to do is look for a sample collection online, buy it, pull up the preset of the sound we want and start playing. Sure saves a lot of time. And if you think these synths today are easy to program, think again.

One of the synthesizers that I have, and one of my favorites, it the Synthmaster 2.6. The sounds you can get out of this thing are nothing short of amazing. But in all honesty, it is a royal pain in the backside to program. Sure, I can do it. After using synthesizers for over 35 years I can get some decent sounds out of it. But at what price? The price is the ridiculous amount of time it takes to program ONE sound.

In the meantime, I could just buy one of those soundbanks for a few bucks (which is what I did) and have hundreds of presets at my disposal. Granted, a lot of them sound the same in this package that I got (it’s actually multiple collections) but there is still enough variety that I don’t have to ever turn knobs and pull sliders to get the sounds that I want. Saves me tons of time. And that’s the key to all this prepackaged stuff…it saves time.

And that’s what sampling does. It saves time and it saves money. I mean can you imagine what the cost of an orchestra would be for just one hour of recording time? I don’t even want to think of it. Without sampling, my entire orchestral category on my site wouldn’t exist. Actually, this site itself wouldn’t exist. I would have one category, electronic music since I don’t even own a real piano.

We take a lot of things for granted in this business of music. Imagine if some of it were taken away from us. That’s why I’m all for sampling but I am also all for making sure these people are properly compensated. What’s proper compensation? That’s another can of worms. I have no idea. I’ll leave that to smarter minds than the one that’s taking up space in my noggin.

As far as the technology of sampling goes, man, we have sure come a long way since the first Flying Saucer record. I think some of the charm of that record is how cheesy it sounded. But today, we have sampling nailed to a science. We can manipulate samples every which way to Sunday. And we can do it so much easier than it was done back in the stone ages. The software available is nothing short of amazing.

But there is also a learning curve too. I personally have never created my own samples. I’ve tried, but it always comes out sounding like garbage. I mean think about all the things you have to do in order to get a sample just right. The recording has to be crystal clean to begin with. That means recording with high end stuff. You can’t use a $10 mic and expect to get a good sample. I mean if you’re going for cheap sounding, yeah. But if you want your grand piano to sound good, you better spend some big bucks on equipment.

Then, after you record the instrument, you have to make sure that your start and end points of the sample are done properly. Clipped samples are horrible sounding. If you make the length too short, what you get is a ghastly mess. And then there’s the number of samples that you’re going to take. How far are you going to stretch those notes? If you sample middle C on the piano, are you going to use that middle C for D and E or just D, or maybe just C? There are people who will actually use that middle C for a whole octave. Can you imagine how bad that piano is going to sound?

Like I said, we take a lot for granted and we shouldn’t. we should be grateful for everything that we have to work with in music.

Even flying saucers.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagwenheim

It is my hope that this article will help inspire some up and coming composers and artists who might be struggling, like I am, and wondering if anything good is ever going to come from their efforts. So this story is strictly for inspiration. I hope you enjoy it and get something from it.

When my main business hit the skids, I decided it was time to finally do the music thing full time. If I was going to be broke I was going to be it doing something I loved. To that end, I created this royalty free music site. But that wasn’t the end of it. I knew it was going to be a long road to hoe and didn’t want to put all my eggs in one basket.

In spite of this, things have gone a lot slower than even I anticipated and I have to admit that I was getting a little discouraged. I was also starting to maybe lose a little confidence in my ability. That’s never a good thing when you’re a composer.

Well, the other day, somebody purchased one of my stock tunes for a whole $1.99 and used it for one of his videos. I just found out that this person was a member of a forum that I attend. Well, he posted the video for everybody to see, which I thought was nice. Maybe this would give me some exposure.

Anyway, another member of the forum asked the person who posted the video which track was mine. He informed him that it was right at the end just after the photo of his son. I thought that was kind of cool that he felt my piece was good enough to close the video.

This other forum member obviously went to watch the video and, I suppose, have a listen to my track. Well, this is what he said after watching.

WOW…. I have to apologize Steven, that score was actually much better than I assumed it was going to be. I honestly think that if you are patient and keep plugging away, that word of mouth will be a huge factor. – In fact I’m going to scour your site today for a video project I’m working on.

Yeah, it’s only one person, but that’s all it takes. One person to pass on the word to another person and another and another. Pretty soon, before you know it, a lot of people know who you are.

All it takes is a little confidence and some word of mouth to get things going.

So what can you do in the meantime?

Let me start off by saying this. It’s a long process. This doesn’t happen overnight unless you are extremely lucky. I started putting this business together last July. That’s right, it’s been a whole year and I’m first starting to see a glimmer of light at the end of a very dark tunnel. Don’t expect miracles.

At the top of the list, you need to develop a solid business plan. Know what it is you want to do BEFORE you actually go and do it. The last thing you want to be doing is stumbling around in the dark. I had a definite plan last July and I’ve executed it. I knew exactly how many tracks I wanted to have on this site by a certain time. After a slight “realistic” modification of that goal, I have reached it. It took a lot of 14 hour days to do it. Yeah, this is a lot of work.

For a lot of people, execution is the hard part. I’m not talking literally hard, as in unable to do the work. If you’re a composer, you should be able to compose. The hard part of execution is motivating yourself. There are going to be those days when you just don’t feel like working. Believe me, there are times when I really have to push myself. Taking several breaks during the day helps to get through it. And rewarding yourself with a treat after a job well done doesn’t hurt either.

Making a schedule will help a lot. If you’re looking at a massive project all at once, it becomes insurmountable. What you need to do is break that massive project up into smaller projects. For example, I’m currently working on putting together a 5 CD set. I can’t look at it as 5 CD’s. I have to look at it as one CD at a time. If I do it that way, the entire project becomes a lot easier to complete. Pacing yourself is a must or you’ll burn out.

Yes, I understand that sometimes you’re under time pressure. But you shouldn’t be when you’re first starting out. When you’re first starting out, you probably have very little work that you have to do, which is another reason why it’s sometimes so hard to get motivated. If the time comes when you ARE under time pressure, well, that means you’ve probably already made it or, at the very least, you’re getting steady work. I’m not there yet, but I hope to be soon.

Does that last remark sound like optimism? Yes, that’s exactly what it is. Read the title again. You have to have confidence. People will pick up when you don’t. In fact, it’s probably why it took me over a year to get my first job out of college. I had no confidence at all 35 years ago. Believe in yourself and others will believe in you as well.

Besides, I’ve been writing music for over 35 years. I would like to think that by now I’ve gotten at least a little good at it. If I really haven’t then I am in the wrong business and I just refuse to believe and accept that.

I have no idea what the coming year is going to bring. I can see how far I’ve come since last July when I started composing again after a somewhat long hiatus.

So if composing and being recognized for composing is important to you, remember, all it takes is confidence and a little word of mouth.

Of course faith and a little luck can’t hurt.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

I’m going to get a little deep here. If you have trouble following, it’s not you. It’s all on me. Sometimes my mind goes into very strange places and it’s not pretty. Then again, what musician is in his right mind anyway? Having said that, if you want to go on a little adventure, come with me now into the land that is commonly referred to as Steve’s “happy place.” No, I am not off my meds.

So I go to this forum that I regularly attend. It’s a marketing forum. Honestly, I don’t get along with many people there. I do have a few friends but most people think I’m just plain nuts. Who am I to argue? Anyway, the other day there was a purchase on my site for one of my orchestral tracks titled “Fanfare For Fran.” I was curious as to what this person was using it for as I always am, but quickly forgot about it. But back to the forum.

I talk about the track and my amazement at the circumstances of the purchase (I won’t get into that here) and then wouldn’t you know it, one of the members of the forum admits that he was the one who purchased it. But not only that, he posts a 7:35 video on the site. Well, wouldn’t you know it…Fanfare For Fran was the last song on the video, the finale.

Now, when I wrote that, I pictured it being more of an intro piece, though I guess it could be used to close a video as well. The context in which I saw it, taking everything into account as far as the video itself, left me kind of scratching my head. I just didn’t picture this piece used in that manner. It seemed like a square peg in a round hole. But son of a gun, it worked. I’m not saying that because I wrote it because God knows I’ve written plenty of stuff that probably wouldn’t work if you took a sledge hammer to it. But this odd little piece worked in the context in which it was used.

And this got me to thinking. As composers, do we box our brains in? Are we so programmed to hear what we want to hear given a set of conditions? If video director John Doe shows us a bowl of fruit on screen and tells us to write music for it, do we only see one way of doing this that makes any sense to us?

In other words, are we so afraid to break stereotypes that we refuse to accept that maybe sometimes we can put a square peg into a round hole and it will somehow fit?

Okay, I know what you’re going to say. But a square peg DOESN’T fit in a round hole. Yeah, but can we make it fit? What if we widen the hole? The square peg would then at least go inside the hole. It may not be the most snug fit. The peg might wiggle around a bit, but it will still go inside the hole.

If that doesn’t work, we can always shave the peg. Why not? Take a knife to it and shave off the corners. Decrease the size of the peg and maybe even round the edges and that peg might just fit after all. Again, it won’t be the best fit in the world but it’ll fit.

Fear is a terrible thing. A wise man, a long time ago, said that there was nothing to fear but fear itself. He was very wise and one of our greatest Presidents. And he was right. Fear is a crippler. Fear keeps us from doing crazy things like fitting square pegs in round holes.

Now don’t get me wrong. When you decide to go against the grain, you’re taking a chance. People in general expect certain things when they are exposed to other certain things. If they’re watching a scene in a movie with cowboys and Indians fighting each other, they’re going to expect to hear some kind of wild west shoot ’em up music and God help you if you decide to orchestrate a waltz for the scene. You might get more than just some strange looks.

But having said that, do we always have to go for the stereotypical response? Must everything be so gosh darn obvious that the audience can practically write the score for you? Doesn’t that end up going in the other direction of predictable and boring?

There has to be a middle ground. There has to be some square peg that will fit in that round hole that doesn’t make us cringe but makes us go “Hmm, that was very interesting the way he did that.” I think that’s what separates the great composers from everybody else.

Want an example of what I’m talking about? Watch the Cantina scene from Star Wars Episode IV. That was so totally unexpected it has become a classic. That’s taking chances, putting that kind of scene and music into a sci fi movie. It was brilliant, that’s what it was.

Personally, I think we need more of that in entertainment. There is too much mundane stuff floating around. Don’t get me wrong, it all fits nicely and, on some level, it’s really good. Of course it’s really good. It’s tried and proven to work. There is no danger involved. But it’s also very safe. And where you have safe you have no innovation. And when you have no innovation you have a stagnant world.

Therefore, when I write, I try to stretch things a bit. I try to put that square peg in that round hole. I don’t always succeed. In fact, I’d say most of the time I probably fall flat on my face. But every once in a while I hit pay dirt and when that happens, it makes it all worth while.

So don’t be afraid to take chances. Don’t be afraid to find that square peg and put it in that round hole. With a little widening or shaving, it just might work and turn out to be a piece of real art and not just another stock piece of music.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

It’s great if the music is great. Nothing can replace a great song. But that doesn’t mean we can’t dress it up a bit to put on those finishing touches. In this article, I’m going to discuss various effects and using them, if you’ll pardon the pun, effectively. Okay, that was just bad. Anyway, here goes.

There are many ways to use effects and many purposes to fill. The key to using effects effectively is to first know what it is you’re trying to accomplish. Is it to create a certain musical ambiance or is it maybe to add some artificial color to a song? Maybe you literally want to transform the instruments into something else. Without a clear plan of what you want the finished product to sound like, you can’t possibly go about choosing the right effect for your song. So let’s go through a few examples. Please understand that this is by no means an exhaustive list as there are many things that can be done to a song as far as effects go.

Let’s start with ambiance as this is the easiest to achieve. We’re going to assume that all instruments are recorded dry, meaning no effects of any kind built into the sound itself. With synthesizers, this isn’t always true. Some factory patches for a number of synthesizers are programmed with an effects section. Using these kinds of sounds does complicate things slightly, but the principles are still the same.

So we have our dry instruments. Let’s say, for the purpose of this example, piano, bass, drums, sax and organ. Let’s say we’re recording a jazz tune using all internal VSTs, meaning no external microphones, so if we want to simulate the sound of a jazz club, we have to add our effects afterwards. The question is, what effects do we add?

In the old days, this was a tall order. Reverb units didn’t have settings. You had to fiddle with the knobs until you “heard” the sound that you wanted to get out of your recording. Today, internal built in effects have presets that pretty much cover any scenario you could want to duplicate, including the ambiance of a jazz club. So all you need to do is pull up your reverb unit and set it to club or room and you’re done.

But is that going to give you the best sound or the sound you want? If you apply this setting to the entire ensemble equally, you’re not going to get a true recreation of a club ambiance. The reason is because the various instruments all produce different amounts of reverb based on the type of instrument it is and how it’s being played. A screaming saxophone is going to produce more reverberation than a softly played drum set. So in assigning reverb to each instrument, you’re going to want to adjust the decay and amount individually. That means, instead of pulling up one reverb unit for all five instruments, you need to pull up one for each instrument, or five different reverb units.

Overkill? Maybe. It depends on the arrangement and the song itself. Some songs are simple enough that one or two reverb units will be enough. In many jazz type songs, the sax is the only thing that needs a little extra reverb if you want the sax to be further back in the mix OR less reverb if you want it to be up front. This is something common with violin concertos. The violin is mic’d so that it goes over the top of the rest of the orchestra in order to be heard. A close mic is going to mean less reverb on the violin. Well, it’s the same thing with the sax. If you want that sax dry and up front, you use less reverb.

Point is, you have to look at the instruments you’re using, the arrangement of the song, and what you want for each instrument as far as how it comes across in the mix. That same quintet is going to sound completely different played in a large auditorium or concert hall. In those cases, one reverb unit will probably do the trick.

That’s ambiance in a nutshell, though the subject itself can get incredibly complex. But what about other types of effects?

One of my favorites is the lead synth that goes echoing across the soundscape. This can be accomplished either by using lots of reverb or delay or both. Reverb kind of washes the sound out and makes it harder to cut through the mix. With delay, you can get that echoing sound and still have the lead synth cut through the mix.

What about when you want the snare of a drum kit to kind of stand out from the rest of the drums? Well, one trick is to record the drums dry, duplicate the track and then isolate the snare from the rest of the kit on the duplicated track, removing it from the original track and then adding whatever processing you want to it. What kind of processing? One thing you could do is maybe add a bit of flange to it. Of course you can always add a little reverb or delay to the snare as well. Chorus also works nicely for some interesting effects.

If you want to get that Beatles “Lady Madonna” like sound, you can try putting some chorus on a regular piano and compressing the heck out of it. It won’t be exact, but it’ll be pretty close.

Probably the key to all of this is to understand what each effect does to an instrument. The best way to do this is by trial and error. With experimental music, nothing is written in stone so there’s no reason why you can’t assign effects to instruments that you normally wouldn’t have. You would be surprised at what interesting things you can come up with. And if something doesn’t work, so what? Scrap it and try something else.

Don’t be afraid to experiment. Some of the greatest achievements in music came because somebody took a chance.

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim

In this article, I want to talk about naming your songs.

So what’s in a name? How important is it to the song itself? How unique or different should the name be? How long should it be? Should you stay away from controversial names? These are just a few of the many questions we could ask when coming up with a name for our song. Where would you like to begin?

Let me begin with how important the name is to the song itself because I think my views on this might not jive 100% with everybody else’s.

If you walk through the history of music, from the classics all the way to today’s rock, pop, dance or whatever, you’ll find a lot of different naming conventions. Some of them leave a lot to be desired as far as, well, as far as anything goes for that matter.

Take the early classics. Very few of them had names other than Symphony Number 7 In F Major or Sonata Number 3 In G Minor, or whatever. Sure, there were exceptions, like Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” but that piece of music only “got’ the name that it did when poet Ludwig Rellstab described the music as being “like moonlight shining on a lake” in 1832. The actual piece itself was written in 1827 and was titled “Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor Op. 27 No. 2. That’s the official title.

Who, other than classically knowledgeable people, knows this stuff? Do you think I know the “name” of every piano sonata ever written even by one composer? This kind of naming convention makes it a little difficult to separate the pieces.

So if you want to go by the classics of 200 to 300 years ago, a name really doesn’t matter all that much.

But what about today? What about popular music? Do you think a lot of these same songs that were huge hits and instantly recognizable would be so had they been given numbers? Imagine Billy Joel’s “Just The Way You Are” being titled “Song Number 58 by Billy Joel” or something like that.

My point is, the importance of a name of a song is heavily dependent on the context of when it was written and what kind of song it is. I’ve written one piano concerto and one symphony using the naming conventions of the classics. To me, it seemed proper to do it that way. Does it matter that they don’t have easily identifiable names? In this instance, I don’t believe it does.

But here is where I differ slightly. If you’re going to write 50 symphonies, I believe you better have some identifiable titles if you want them to be remembered. Otherwise, they’ll all blur together.

Anyway, so much for the importance of a name.

What about the uniqueness of a name? Well here too we have some major differences but also some similarities. In both classical and popular music, we have a lot of names that are the same as other songs. For example, know how many Sonata Number 1’s we have? I sure don’t, nor do I know how many are in the same key. In the rare instance where a name is given to a popular piece after it is written, like the “Moonlight Sonata” the name is usually pretty unique. How many Moonlight Sonatas do we have?

Yet, look at today’s music. Know how many songs are named “You And Me?” I found six. Know how many are named “Without You?” I found 18.

Forgetting classical music, because of its odd naming convention, lets look at popular music. For the most part, songs that stand out the most are the ones with unique names. Sure, there are always exceptions. But how many songs are names “To Sir With Love” or “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head?” If you want to have the best chance of having your song remembered, you’re probably best off coming up with a unique name. I try to do that whenever I write something, though it’s not easy when you’ve written thousands of songs.

What about the length of a name? This is kind of a double edged sword. A longer name may make it more unique but probably harder to remember depending on how long it is. So you want to balance length against familiarity. I find a 4 or 5 word title for a song is a good sweet spot. Of course if you can come up with a really catchy two word combination, you’ve struck gold.

Then of course there are controversial names. This is a touchy subject, though less so now than years ago. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Billboard Hot 100 from the last few years. I can’t believe we’ve actually reached a point where song titles have four letter words in them. I was stunned when I saw the title of CeeLo Green’s tune from 2010. You couldn’t get away with that stuff when I was a kid back in the 60s. But times have changed. Therefore, if you can come up with a controversial title and actually put some good music to it, you might have something. Certainly, in today’s day and age, controversy isn’t going to hurt you unless you really cross some kind of line. Apparently, saying “FU” in a song is nowhere near that line anymore.

In fairness, however, clean versions of that song were done for the “general” public and for being able to be performed on TV. So we haven’t completely lost our minds just yet. We’re getting there, but we still have a ways to go.

All in all, the name of your song really doesn’t matter if the song itself isn’t any good. Crappy music with a great title is still crappy music.

I think titles are important. I think we need something to identify with and giving our songs a good name, or at least an interesting one, will help the masses identify with our song. And when the smoke clears, isn’t that what we ultimately want?

For The Love Of Music,

Steven “Wags” Wagenheim