This blog is a sister music blog to my cello blog, avaliable at:
Between them, I journal about myself as a singer/musician as well as the stories behind my music, with an emphasis on my solo instruments: singing and the cello. I also play a few other instruments which I may incorporate and refer to here and there in these blogs.
As you can see above, I belong to Encore and they require me to showcase my singing, as does my other profile with StarNow: 🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶🎵🎶🎵
This sounds easy but all the songs I learned were from musical theatre shows and pop. I was lucky that my singing teachers at theatre school were specialists in musical theatre, writing the music and lyrics for their own West End shows. They were energetic and keen to put on shows with us starring in them and we received sweets as a reward🍬🙂👍. Some of us were given solos and I was one of them. This was excellent experience because they taught us various stage and performance skills which meant I always felt at home on stage. Here's a photo from one of the shows. I'm singing solo, aged 7, on stage in front of an audience, accompanied by a pianist. The rest of the children in the photo I've blurred over to make them anonymous to protect their privacy:
I'm obviously the one in focus with a microphone 🎤. I'm singing 'Puff the Magic Dragon', as sung by the American 60's group Peter, Paul and Mary. They were part of the pop movement which took traditional folk songs and adapted them into a new genre, folk rock. I've furthered this 60's movement in my album 'Handmade Art' where I've arranged traditional folk songs into a rock/pop genre.
However, all the songs we learnt were modern ie written by composers and lyricists who died less than 70 years ago. The 70 year copyright rule unfortunately applies to me because I am in the UK. Elsewhere (other than in the EU) copyright expires after 50 years instead, giving people living or working in those places (eg USA and Canada) a 20 year head start and advantage over the EU and UK. This means I cannot freely record certain songs or music myself in the UK, for copyright reasons. I'm surprised the UK has not updated their copyright regulations after Brexit to be in line with the international norm of a 50 year copyright rule, rather than be held back two decades by the EU-based 70 year rule which was thought up in France after WWII and is frankly unworkable for the music/entertainment industry in this day and age. Despite living in the 21st century, I find myself having to throw out recording ideas for fabulous songs and music, purely because the composer or lyricist/librettist was born in the second half of the 19th century and didn't die prematurely. So you are stuck with nothing more modern than early 19th century composers, songwriters and lyricists and eras prior to this (unless they sadly met with an extremely premature death). This even becomes quite messy with opera. For instance, you find that you can and cannot sing arias by a given composer, depending on the one or more lyricists or librettists they collaborated with on it! Hence, I couldn't record myself singing Song to the Moon by Dvorak, even though he died ages ago in 1904, because his librettist for the opera Rusulka was a poet who was much younger than him and died 10th January 1950. So he was born around 32 years before the turn of the 20th century (1868) yet, until last year, he was deemed too recent to use! So I could only record it last year.
Fritz Kreisler's (1875-1962) Liebesleid is another example. I can play it on the violin or cello in a licenced music venue but I have to wait another 11 years before I can record it! This is utter nonsense. Why don't streaming sites also have their own all encompassing licences for artists to make use of?
Arrangements are another problem to contend with. Rachmaninov's Vocalise is not taught in the original. Tutors teach the arrangement of it by Rose. When you are a child you don't realize the implications of this. Vocalise has been rearranged/transcribed/edited by Leonard Rose who has changed the key from the original C sharp minor to G major. So playing (or singing) the original entails relearning the piece with different notes, sharps, and cello fingering. That means learning the same piece twice and the two versions create very different moods. The original is in a minor key which makes it sound melancholy. Once, you change this minor key to a major key, as Rose has, it gives it a brighter, western atmosphere more like Saint-Saens. It now no longer has a particular type of folk song tone quality. That's a huge difference! So much for speeches in masterclasses about a composer's intention and staying true to the original score! If Rachmaninoff wanted Vocalise to sound so perky, he would have written it like that! So why is an arranger rewriting it and then asking us to buy it as if it is in keeping with Rachmaninoff?! In my opinion, if you want to adapt an out of copyright piece or song that's fine, as long as it's a creative process and results in original or derivative work and labelled accordingly. Going from minor to major is a large, significant difference. There's also so many various arrangements of this piece giving rise to many different looking and sounding scores, Rachmaninoff's intentions are fast becoming obscured. He only gave singers the option to adjust the key to suit their vocal range, since the piece is really intended for singers. Instrumentalists are not limited by vocal range so can stay with the original key it was written in and merely keep it within their instrumental range. For instance, cellists often transcribe violin pieces down an octave, otherwise they are playing too high in their register. Although cellists play high up past 4th position, they don't tend to sit up there for a whole piece so it makes sense to transcribe it down an octave.
Speaking of Saint-Saens, an arranger doesn't even have to have much input at all before being written down as an arranger. The only real difference in Jacqueline du Pre's arrangement of The Swan is that she's added glissandos that Saints-Saens didn't write in or intend. Nevertheless, it meant I still had to spend time digging out an original, old publication of The Swan partly to check for differences between the scores and partly to avoid falling into her arranger copyright, even though the score is almost identical to Saint-Saens. Why the emphasis on playing the original if classical musicians don't seem to like the original? Otherwise, why would they feel moved to change anything? If during performance du Pre decided to put in glissandos then that's part of her interpretation as a musician. There's no need to write it down officially, especially since she has recorded it, which copyrights her interpretation. However, it's a minute point - a glissando is merely a common, stylistic preference that anyone could choose to do. And might do it because that's how they tend to play the cello and express themselves, it does not have to have anything to do with her arrangement. I do like to indulge in the odd glissando or three! It may not be fashionable at the moment and I'm sure Isserlis would tut-tut over it, but too bad! We can't all play the same way and neither should we! 🙂
Whereas I did need to arrange the folk songs on my album myself because it showcases my pop singing style which I cannot otherwise put out there unless I also become a songwriter, which is a distinct job in itself. Why do relatives receive rights and money after a composer / lyricist dies? The spirit of the notion of copyright and royalties is, surely, that creative people are paid for their ideas e.g. music scores, lyrics, research, books. So why are relatives of the deceased getting paid for ideas they themselves didn't have?
Printers/publishers also have to be out of copyright! You need to check the edition and whether that hasn't been extended as well by someone or other. This happens to authors as well. Someone edits a book but the publisher owns copyright on the editing. 😡
Puccini should be out of copyright because he died over 70 years ago (1858-1924). This not only means you should be able to sing his operas freely, it also should mean that you can make, what's known as, derivative works from it ie. adapt Puccini's music as a way of writing your own original piece/song. So it shouldn't matter whether Andrew Lloyd Webber based his original music on Puccini or not. However, the Puccini estate complained that ALW had ripped off Puccini. Not only is this excessive when the composer is deceased so the creative person's life and financial situation is in no way disadvantaged, but also, ALW should, strictly speaking, be free to make derivative works from Puccini because the composer should be out of copyright. Why is it deemed more ethical for a group of living people who have not had any ideas or creative input, to still make money out of a dead composer by owning his rights. This could go on indefinitely if every generation of children did the same. ALW didn't have to think up a totally original song, he should have been free to draw inspiration from Puccini's music. So the realm of the ridiculous is extended when people renew and extend deceased people's copyright. So you even have to check that! 😱 (I believe I'm right in saying this. If not, ALW will hopefully let me know in the comments below and I'll amend accordingly.)
The above example also shows the hazards of writing your own songs or any type of musical score. You can have people running after you claiming 'It sounds like'..........even down to a riff. Riffs are fairly restrictive. How many ways can you change the sequence of notes? There was a case brought against a riff played on a guitar, for goodness sake!
You can't even use audition backing tracks and record yourself singing to them because they write on these disks that they want to retain their rights. Why? They are not the height of creativity. Surely, they are there to be used! Isn't that self-defeating? How do I use it for auditions it I can't use it in public? They could have added extra words to make it clear auditions are exempt, but they don't. They could have easily written e.g. as long as it is for non-profit use.
There is a designated organisation in the UK through which UK artists can buy song licences, if you can understand all their complicated information. So I could pay to do cover versions of a few songs, but how many times do I have to keep paying while not receiving anything myself? It also restricts my repertoire to do so. And I'm expected to pay more than once for each song in order to use it in more than one way. Fine if you are with a major recording company they will do everything for you and buy the licences themselves. But that's not something everyone achieves and certainly not straightaway. And I'm not even trying to be that clever. It should be made easier for musicians and singers to get off the ground in the first place without having to stress out and double check everything in case someone later tries to catch them out on some small technicality that was unclear and illogical in the first place.
Even when you do pay for song licenses there are restrictions and the rules are complex and inconsistent, making it all rather impractical to record. This is especially true when recording videos (as opposed to audio tracks), because there is no set price for buying a video recording licence. It's up to the performer to start bargaining the price individually with the owner of the copyright, despite sample music videos being a compulsory profile requirement for all performers. Performing cover songs at music venues is more straightforward because simpler rules apply, although outside of licensed venues, a few extra rules can apply. But then I can't perform them until I have a video out of me singing something relevant. So it's a catch22.
Nevertheless, I still continually build my repertoire of modern songs because they are performable and recordable under certain conditions so always relevant!
There are far too many different licences for different usages so I would have to buy the same song several times over just to sing it on different platforms - one for a video, I or somebody else, records; one for a digitally released album e.g. Itunes; another if I want my single or album as a physical CD format; yet another if I want to perform it at a venue that doesn't have a licence themselves.
The whole pop scene and musical theatre are a relatively recent genre so you have no free access to these songs unless you pay before receiving a penny yourself. Why isn't it proportional to how much money the performer receives for recording or performing the song? Otherwise, they are paying before even knowing whether they will be paid themselves. However, the royalties system only advantages songwriters who are already highly successful and wealthy because their songs are recorded and performed numerous times in various ways e.g. TV, radio, tours. Whereas a young, unknown songwriter can be very talented but if performers aren't aware of them and constantly using their songs, they can't earn enough money from it. They literally get only a few pence in royalties from each usage so how many times these few pennies are multiplied makes a huge difference! Quite apart from the fact that songwriters themselves receive very little since admin is paid out of the licence fee. So why are songwriters making such a fuss over a system that doesn't work for the majority but only for the wealthy minority?
In the US, there are systems which you can pay to clear all copyright for you and you release songs through them and they distribute them for you worldwide. Hence, artists in the US receive a full package. An all-in-one. This gives American singers and performers a head start on the UK and EU . UK artists can use the system but it's not as simple. The EU wanted to complicate the system even further by insisting everything put out on the internet/streaming sites including youtube, websites etc, has to be not only wildly original but also completely performed and produced by you, no collaboration, not even an accompanist. Which is why I decided to pre-empt this possibility and have done the entire process myself on my youtube channel and emerging albums, just in case the UK takes on this preposterous EU proposal.
Hence, I've focused on out of copyright folk and classical songs/opera arias. I have also done all the accompaniments, arrangements, recordings and any backing tracks/instruments myself. So I own the copyright and performance rights to all of this.
Nevertheless, I enjoy the creative process and it simplifies the uploading regulations with respect to performance rights and copyright. I'm gradually releasing two albums, a folk one called 'Handmade Art' and a classical album 'Arias and Classical Songs'.
You can follow me on SoundCloud where I showcase extracts from these albums which are available for everyone to listen to for free:
I have started to post my music videos and others on Youtube, including samples of my dancing and acting:
