But such not need be the case! My proven system of success in the music business can lead you from the halls of cacophonous mediocrity to the packed performance halls melodious sounds! Confidence can come in knowing that since others have succeeded in the past, there is nothing to prevent you from doing so as well. While some may have tried to emulate the personal or artistic style of an artist (usually to their own discredit), others have discovered that patterns of success can be found in the lives of great artists, and that emulation of certain key aspects of their careers can be the paths to their own success. But before we take a first step down that golden lane, let us consider the missteps that some have taken.

One does not need to spend more than a few minutes "flipping the dial" to reveal an appalling lack of ingenuity, meaning, substance, or conformity to the laws harmony and rhythm. Surprisingly, this is in spite of a rather wide range of diversity in style. This apparent contradiction is a direct result of the way that the norms of the music business and copyright law has evolved, and the perpetuation of this defective system has left both artists and listeners with a desire for something more, but with the inability to escape from their mutual death-grip as they descend down the whirlpool of bland irrelevance.

But what has led to this state? How can it be that such different styles all share in the same common blandness and inanity? The dials of any moderate-size American city can be found to contain contemporary pop, alternative, classic rock, R&B, rap, country, oldies, blues, reggae, big band “standards,” and any other number of genres. Some stations even now brag that they will play “anything,” (apparently having discovered that a clever monkey can be easier (and cheaper) to work with than a typical program director). Yet a random selection of the songs from any of these genres will reveal song lyrics that say little or nothing of value:

• Repetition of simple phrases
• Trite ideas or old themes
• Animal desires, grunts and groans
• Mushy expressions of "love"
• Pride, revenge, lust or greed

• Monotonous drum machines
• Predictable key shifts and solos
• Discordant harmonization
• Nursery-rhyme simplicity
• Overproduction and overuse of technical effects

• East-Coast rappers vs. West-Coast
• Country vs. Disco
• Reggae vs. Soca
• Elvis vs. Sinatra
• Speed Metal vs. Death Metal

And so on, endlessly. Yet where are the lyrics that speak to the conditions of human life, the word that make you reflect on what you have done and should do, the truths for which musicians gave their lives in times past? Where are the tunes that you can sing along to, that you want to remember (instead of desperately try to get out of your head!)? Sadly, we find that today’s favored musicians are leaders in little more than passing clothing or hair fads, or novel ways to break the law.

Somehow, even the most visible artists are also (paradoxically) unable to extend their profitable careers for more than a few releases. Certainly there are a few exceptions, but even those suffer from self-destructive behavior that limits their success. Rare is the artist who can consistently release albums with high sales volumes, or keep audiences coming to the venues; more discover that supplementary work (or relationships) will be necessary to keep them in the position of even continuing their careers. If a dedicated artist spends too much time in his/her "songcraft," they may discover that their former audience has forgotten them; but if they rush a product to market, they risk disappointing loyal fans. A young artist may find that their audience lacks the patience for them to develop their own style, or to experiment with their approach. Older artist may find that their creative wells no longer produce with the bounty of the former years, and desperation or careless recycling may occur. Some artists, while trying to be innovative and to differentiate themselves from the styles of other artists, may end up disfiguring their own style to the dissatisfaction of their listeners.

Such a sad state of affairs on brings further harm to the music business: who would want to enter or stay in such a field, and who can bear to turn on a radio?! As talent, quality, and rewards are watered down, the public shows less and less enthusiasm for the offered products (in spite of the ever-increasing hype), until all that’s offered is worthless. The untalented performer enthralls the uneducated listeners, and neither could imagine that there could be a better state of affairs.

One might think that remedy for this situation would be the arrival of some new style or exceptionally talented artist who could break a new trail away from this spiral of mediocrity. But what is one artist to do? Who is there among the audience that will recognize quality? And who among the record company executives (themselves being a part of the masses) would take such a risk on an "unknown?" And who could follow in his steps without being labeled a "copycat?" Surely there are already plenty of fine musicians from days past who could be presented for such a role, but the public has been molded to look with disdain on voices from the past, and to demand only the most current and up-to-date offerings. Our dilemma persists: how are we to preserve and present quality from the past, while giving it the appearance of newness, so that the public may be led into a positive cycle of musical quality improvement, as opposed to a negative one?

My own musical career stated with the gift of a guitar many years ago. Much practice, along with the discovery of electronic tuning devices, led to the desire to play in front of crowds. After all, what did Bob Dylan have, in terms of playing ability, voice, and looks that I didn’t have?

Demo tapes sent to record companies were returned unopened, or with other material recorded on them, when they even bothered to respond at all. A few gigs at coffee houses and Bar Mitzvahs left me with some extra pocket change, but was it really worth the aggravation brought on by the small minority of drunken hecklers and tone-deaf malcontents? Perhaps my first few attempts were rather awkward, but whose wouldn’t be, given the lack of experience before crowds? What was I to do to gain the experience without losing an audience in my train-and-error sessions?

The answer came for me one while I was listening to the Radiobeacon Radio Show. They were playing a song by Jorsen Khan (who records on the Peartree Records label), an artist I greatly admire. Here is a man who knows how tell a story with music, can enrapture audiences with his voice, sells out stadiums weekly, and knows how to sell records. How could I be like him? But surely JK didn’t start out that way. There was probably a time in his distant past when he had a weak voice, silly songs, missed chords and empty performance halls. "How did he get to where he is today?" I thought.

I already knew that it wasn’t enough just to "throw in" a Jorsen Khan song (or someone else’s) during one of my performances. Sure, the audience would show their appreciation, but it was for Jorsen Khan, not for me. I felt they were always comparing me to Jorsen: "That’s, nice, but I really like Jorsen Khan’s version," or "It really shows what a difference having a backup band can make," or "Did you skip a verse?" I needed my own career, with my own audience, my own lifelike action figures. I imagined if there were some kind of "Jorsen Khan Mortgage Program," that would let me have my "house" without all those years of scrimping in a tiny apartment. But, alas, bankers are not known for their appreciation of the arts!

My break came one evening when I was performing at a children’s zoo. I had offered my version of one Jorsen Khan’s more obscure songs (I think it was, "Family Business"), but I had forgotten to give him credit during the set. A young mother came up to me afterwards, and told me it was the most wonderful song she had ever heard, and how moved she was by it, and would I please come and perform it at her coworkers’ May Day Rally? How could I turn her down? Never again was the name "Jorsen Khan" to pass my lips.

As time went on, I became more comfortable in front of crowds, and became more comfortable with my own interpretation and re-presentation of Jorsen Khan’s material. I began to realize that it was a fallacy to think that each artist had to start with a "blank slate" and to try to come up with something from nothing. Every person has innumerable sources of creative material to which they have been exposed, and whether they consciously or subconsciously draw on these, they must have something on which to base their own work. By denying that their work has a basis in someone else’s work, they are denying themselves the ability to assess the quality and accuracy of that work against the original. The result is that each artist imagines himself to be the originator of ideas that are really not his own, and each becomes a petty dictator in his own little world. Each must defend his own artistic "turf" and answer for the errors that they have unwittingly introduced. Rather than artists working together, they are all fighting against each other for territory in this fixed creative space (that they talk about as being open and free). It is exactly this denial of the creative basis that has led to our present crisis in the music world. We have abandoned quality and correctness in a Quixotian quest for levels if ingenuity and novelty that are beyond our grasp, and the self-denial that comes with this fantasy has ruined our musical culture.

I immediately found great relief in admitting to myself that Jorsen Khan (or any other artist) could be a legitimate source for my work. I no longer had to stay up all night trying to write some "new" song that had never been heard or imagined before. I no longer had to fear that my music was not adhering to proper musical theory, or that it might not be acceptable to the public. I had, in fact, all of the confidence and experience that Jorsen Khan had put into his music, now flowing through me. It was then that I knew that the rewards that had come to JK would also be coming to me.

The response of my audience was my proof that I was doing the right thing. Instead of dwindling audiences, I found that my performances had greater attendance, and record sales were improving. Fans showered me with accolades for my newfound ability to present well-crafted songs with meaningful lyrics that had already stood the test of time. At first, I restricted my repertoire some of Jorsen’s lesser-known songs (it helped that I had a complete collection of all of his music, including some unpublished pieces). As I grew more confident with the process, I began to experiment with rearranging some of his pieces, or reordering verses or even lines of songs. The effect was that I received credit for reinterpreting Jorsen’s material and appreciation for my efforts to make it more presentable and understandable. Simplifying here, adding a bit there, I always tried to add something of myself for the audience in a personal way that Jorsen himself would do if he were present.

I was surprised at how few people actually knew his music. In spite of his notoriety and frequent airplay in certain areas, it was rare for someone to mention to me that they recognized the source of my inspiration. I began to wonder if people really understood his material at all! This gave me further impetus for promoting his work, as I knew it deserved to be heard. To my further surprise, I discovered that most of those who did recognize Khan in my work were not upset, they were delighted that I shared in their appreciation for a great artist! It is true that excellence attracts excellence, so those who value great things find an affinity for those who also value those things. Many of these true aficionados would seek me out to give me credit for honoring someone who had brought light and joy into the lives of so many. True, there was a small minority who berated me for not living up to their expectations of novelty, but I eventually realized that every one of these individuals either had something personal against Jorsen Khan, or against me, or they simply didn’t appreciate good music. But my time was no longer to be spent trying to appease an unhappy few with questionable taste.

While my successes have not yet rivaled those of my idol, I have progressed far beyond what would have been possible otherwise. I would certainly be pleased if all the world appreciated Jorsen Khan’s music as much as I do, and just as pleased if they all appreciated mine, but that is not quite enough for me, for what is the world to do when Jorsen or Zechariah or whoever is dead and gone? Who will lead future generations into the appreciation of good music, and who will reveal to them the things that are appropriate for their ears, the voices of the angels and oracles of the gods? Will it be the record companies? We’ve seen where that leads.

These considerations have led me to the inescapable conclusion that if there is any hope that good music will be heard in the future, then I must share with the world how to present that music, even if it means giving up some of my own "secrets" of success. I accept the risk that some criticism may come my way, but let that be for the greater good of music itself. As this practice becomes more accepted, it will also become more acceptable. And if I should be thanked for having rescued any from the howlings of a corporate-contrived, manufactured teen band, then I will count myself as having truly succeeded.

Let us proceed to the art.

Practice

The first step in a successful music career should be the personal realization that you, as an artist, are substantially deficient in the skills needed to bring you to success (or to bring success to you!). As good as might be in certain areas, you do not have all it takes to become a star. Only by realizing your inferiority can you begin you path to achievement. It is not enough to say that you are inferior, you must really believe it! If you are having trouble with this concept, it may help to:

• Repeat phrases to yourself, like:
  • I have a terrible voice.
  • What’s wrong with me?
  • I hate how I play!
  • Nobody likes me.
• Play in front of large audiences who don’t know you
• Study the lives of great artists
• Focus on your own inability to do things that come easy to others
• Write songs about your own failures
• Volunteer to clean up stadiums after big concerts by well-known artists

Step two: Select a successful artist who performs good music, and try to obtain the entire library of their work. The artist should be neither so well-known that your source will be obvious, nor so obscure that the regional peculiarities will be identifiable and distracting. Sources for such material could be:

• eBay
• Second-hand record stores, flea markets and goodwill stores
• Your parent’s attic
• Shortwave radio
• Other artists who practice this method

The third step would be to select a single song from the chosen artist’s repertoire; this may be done at random, or through some chronological or alphabetical method. The order will not matter, you will merely need a simple way to make sure that you’re not reexamining the same material. Do not spend a lot of time fretting over which song to use as your first; any will suffice. If the outcome is not satisfactory, you can just as easily repeat the process with another selection.

Next, you will want to listen to the piece once-through, in one sitting, if at all possible. Try to grasp the overall theme, without focusing on any particulars. Do not be distracted by the fact that you do not understand a particular line, or can’t place the key or identify a particular instrument. This is only to familiarize yourself with the song.

When you have given yourself some time to reflect on the work, it will then be your time to prepare your song. With paper and pen in hand, cue the selected song for play. Listen to the song, and as you hear the words, write them on your paper. Don’t be too concerned if you miss some words, you should be able to fill these in with little difficulty at the time of your performance. If you are having trouble keeping up, you can pause the playback and go back over the section, if necessary. If it should occur to you that there might be a better way to phrase something, or a better rhyming word, write that down in place of what you heard. If you dislike an entire verse, feel free to fill in your own, if you can make it with the style you have already recorded.

You will have the option of trying to record the music notation along with the lyrics, or by recording them in separate passes (music and lyrics line-by-line or all the lyrics, then all the music). Some practice should indicate which method you are more comfortable with. Musical notation could be formal (for those trained in the art), or simply consist of tablature, chord markings, or some other scheme you might have seen somewhere. Don’t fret (pun intended) if you haven’t perfectly transcribed what you have heard; realize that professional musicians do not strive to perfectly reproduce what they have recorded each time they perform – in fact, they often intentionally vary their performance to enliven it or to experiment with alternate arrangements. If you can imagine some improvement to the music – say, some flourish, or extra notes, or guitar solo, or chord structure – you may wish to experiment with that section before recording (on paper) and proceeding.

Other substitutions may also be appropriate at this time. You may wish to personalize the piece by replacing the person named with your own spouse’s or boyfriend’s/girlfriend’s name (don’t forget to change other pronouns when changing the gender of the person named!). Change place names if you feel that that will bring the song closer to your audience. Substitute whatever instrumentation you think to be appropriate (or whatever is available to you!). Great discoveries are sometimes made when substituting instruments, especially when they cross categorical boundaries (i.e., strings, winds, percussion, electronic, legal, etc.).

You may feel that it might be a more efficient use of your time to simply purchase or Xerox&trade a printed copy of the music, but you should avoid this temptation. This approach would not leave enough room for your own creative input, and it might be construed by some as your having crossed some imaginary legal line. If the music is flowing from your ears, through your brain, to your hands, there is no question that the product has been indelibly marked by your own character.

If you are concerned that the song is too familiar or overplayed, you may wish to rearrange the order of the song, or even insert bars from other songs. Add or drop a prelude, start with the chorus instead of a verse, or skip a chorus for one or two verses. Some artists have shown success by bridging two completely different songs together. Don’t worry too much about maintaining the former author’s meaning or intentions -- how many songs make that much sense anyway?! This is your own creation: don’t be constrained by those who may have merely preceded you in time. You have your own message to get across, and no one else will do it they way that you will. Think of it as a construction you make with Legos&trade or a paint-by-number, but YOU get to decide when you will "go outside the lines."

You may wish to play your new song through once or twice prior to any public performance or recording session. Make sure that it still has an even flow and cohesive sound. Record any adjustments you think are necessary. Do not feel that you have to memorize the piece prior to performance -- that will only lead to a dull, mechanical presentation. You need to leave the door open for adjustments "on the fly," as you deliver the piece. Feel free to improvise if you cannot read some of the notes or words while you are playing; this will improve the listeners’ experience permit them to identify with you in a personal way. If someone should question why you are relying on sheet music for your own material, you can tell them:

• It keeps you from staying into other tunes
• You have to control your playing, or your listeners wouldn’t be able to handle it if you got too excited
• It’s just a prop for effect
• It shows that you prepared beforehand
• It’s just an old habit
• The best musicians do it this way
• "If you want to hear someone improvise a whole set, or lip-synch to recorded music, you’re welcome to attend a concert somewhere else!"

It is typical for an artist to relate little jokes or anecdotes between songs, during a set. You should prepare this in advance. If you are having trouble coming up with some of your own, you might want to get a joke book or review some live albums of other artists. It is probably better to rely on proven material than to try to come up with your own. Don’t worry whether the material is appropriate to the songs you have selected for the performance -- people will quickly get caught up in the music and forget whatever association you might have intended, anyway. The important thing is to get them to laugh a bit and set their minds for receiving what you have to give. And don’t be concerned that some might not find it funny -- once one or two loyal fans start laughing, the rest of the crowd is sure to follow. And even if they only smile or laugh out of politeness, the effect is the same: their disposition toward you will be significantly improved, and the next laugh will come even easier.

Following a performance, devoted fans and other musicians may approach you to discuss your music. You will want to remain approachable and personable, but you will not want to eliminate the mystery and awe that they might see in you. You should answer some of their simpler questions, but you should protect your "tricks of the trade." Talk about how the music has affected you as well, to give them someone they can identify with. Talk about how you struggled with parts of a song before "it all came to you." Tell them the ideas were not your own, you were "inspired by a higher source." Avoid very technical discussions by telling them:

• How tired you are
• That you can’t remember the details, you have to check your notes later and get back with them
• That "people have argued back and forth on that for years and years..."
• "I don’t know, it just came to me!"
• To tell you what they think about it
• That they need to study the matter more before coming to you
• To ask your manager/driver/stagehand/drummer about it

You should graciously accept their awards and accolades. What you have presented is your own expression flowing through your own hands and vocal chords -- don’t be ashamed of taking credit for your own contributions to the art. There is no limited pool of thanks or generosity that must be shared by all artists, so you are not taking from another when you accept something from a fan. It is a false modesty that points to another when a gift is received; you are the one who made the effort to give the performance, so you are the one who deserves the rewards. Just make sure you them what a great audience they have been, and how special they are for being loyal fans.

There is no need for you to give credit to anyone other than your band members during a live performance or in liner notes. If you had to give credit to everyone who contributed, there would be no room for your material! Think of the last thing you wrote down (whether it’s a song, grocery list, legal memo, golf score, whatever), and ask yourself, "Is there no preceding cause for this expression? Am I a ‘Black Box?’ Am I a creator ‘ex nihilo,’ just like God?" Or, to be fair, would you have to give credit to:

• John Denver
• The Carter Family
• Your Parents
• Your 3rd grade music teacher
• The guy in the next lane at the bank
• Abraham Lincoln
• Johann Gutenberg
• God
• [...]

There is simply neither time nor space to give credit to all those who could claim that they had contributed to your expression, and since the acknowledgement of one claim could legitimize the others, it is simply best if you acknowledge no such contributions or claims. Naming your sources is tedious, distracting and confusing to your audience. They came to hear you, not some other performer. The others had their own audiences, and their own time in the spotlight; they were rewarded by their own fans, and now it’s your turn.

You probably should not publish or distribute your own printed sheet music or lyrics. You don’t need people over-analyzing your work or drawing incorrect conclusions about your sources or intentions. If people want to learn or appreciate your music, let them buy your CDs, come to the concerts, and put forth the effort to master the material, just as you have done!

Don’t worry about any potential detractors. Be insured for your performances, and hire a pre-paid legal service. Remember that anyone who might criticize your really has no voice. You are the one with fans that you can directly address on a regular basis. You are the one who appears on the cover of CDs and magazines. It’s your voice that goes out over the airwaves. What might your enemies have? They have no right to disrupt your performances or to harass you! They can’t affect your fans, because your fans are committed to you! They can’t affect anyone else, because those people don’t care! Ignore those who are against you, and the world will ignore them as well.

Theory

The artistic model presented here follows the one used in science, industry, and nature itself. Any creative work is built on generations of preceding effort and growth. Where would science be if each scientist had to deny himself the right to review other published scientific papers, just so he could maintain the fantasy that he was producing something "original?" Why go to school for years learning things that you can’t reuse for fear of "stealing someone else’s idea?!" How good would published papers be if they had no source material that they could draw from? There was a great scientist who said, "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I stood on the heads of giants!"

But in the music business, it is common practice for artists to avoid listening to another’s work (especially unsolicited submissions) lest they be targeted for a lawsuit based on some supposed similarity between songs. How can anything good come out of a vacuum?

Where would industry be if no company could develop a product that was similar to a competitor’s product, or if no product could be used to make and sell another product? We would be back to the stone ages, each making our own bowls and arrowheads! (Notice the similarity to "modern" music with its grinding and hammering sounds, with murmured grunts and screeches!)

Finally, nature itself teaches us that advances must be passed on to succeeding generation if a species is to evolve. What if each organism had to evolve out of the primordial ooze of amino acids and proteins?! How much intelligent life would be here if we had not inherited our ancestor’s acquired traits of larger brains and enhanced vocal chords? Imagine if the hyena lawyers (of all the animals, don’t you think hyenas would make the best lawyers?) came over and said, "Sorry, your parents have the exclusive right for the use of opposable thumbs, we’ll have you cut yours off. You’ll have to come up with your own way of manipulating things." But such is the state of the music business.

It is said that more copies of the Bible have been printed than all other books combined, and it is a good thing that God does not claim an exclusive right to this work, or else the royalties would exceed that which anyone could pay! Surely the Bible is the most-often quoted piece of work in existence, and where would humanity be if the prophets and Apostles had prohibited the copying of their writings? The Bible itself has a great deal to say about music, and besides the Psalms (which are actually a collection of songs), there are fifteen passages (twelve from the Old Testament and three form the New) that are recognized as having been songs that were incorporated in the text of the Bible. It is interesting that although some of the Old Testament songs are clearly quoted in the New Testament, there is not one place in which the writer gives credit to the original author. No apostle says, "Oh, this is not my idea, I got it from Hezekiah, check back there if you don’t believe me." And should this surprise us? No, for we consider the Bible to be all the Word of God; he is its author, and there is no need for him to qualify or credit himself. But what about the twelve who first sang those songs? Wouldn’t they still be considered the "composers?" Yes, they were the composers, but they would also credit God with giving them the inspiration for their composition, just as any gifted composer would today. And who is that writes, who could demand recognition for what God has given them? And what Apostle should feel ashamed for reusing a part of what God had given to some other person in a prior generation? If music is God’s gift to man, then whom should we thank, than God himself? Thus, we see that there is no law regarding attribution of source for songs to found in the Bible; in fact, the example would indicate otherwise.

The fact that the text of the Bible is available for duplication and distribution (with the exception of some recent translations that were published by large, profit-seeking corporations) is the direct cause of its universality. There is no place on Earth that you can go that you are not closer to a Bible than you are a McDonald’s&trade. Free, open usage always leads to wide dissemination of good material. Imagine if the Pope had said, "Oh, sorry, you can’t print that." Only Latin and Greek scholars would have access to its wondrous content! Instead, the Church has wisely chosen to permit and encourage the accurate distribution of Scripture. It has realized the dissemination of religious material will promote the faith in ways that its missionaries and soldiers cannot! Where are the "mystery religions" that held their secret knowledge verbally and (tried to) passed it on through segregated initiation ceremonies? The knowledge of them has vanished from the face of the Earth! But when information is released, it can take on a life of its own, and expand the sphere of influence far beyond that which any planners of conspirators could ever accomplish. Musicians should pay attention: if they believe that their genre, style and message is better than that of others, they should strive to promote its reuse and free distribution instead of inhibiting it.

The Popes have also realized the value of having a devoted base of fans. Accusers have, throughout the centuries, attacked the popes on such contrived grounds as:

• Simony (buying and selling religious office)
• Nepotism (passing a religious office to a relative or descendant)
• Hypocrisy
• Heresy (rather like accusing the king of treason!)
• Greed

Intellectual property is no different from physical property. The same mentality that would deny you the right to use what God has given to all men on Earth (air, water, land, sunlight, ice cream) will also deny you the right to express your thoughts. Music, books, inventions, speeches, plays, movies, etc., are all merely the physical forms of ideas. Someone had a thought, and write it down or otherwise mad it more or less permanent. And now they want to keep you from using what they have already shared with you! You wouldn’t know about unless they had taken some voluntary action to communicate it to you, and now they want to extract something from you just because you heard it! And this is not even a limited resource: you can’t divide a diamond without damaging or lessening its total value, but intellectual property may be transferred without cost! How can you claim that I owe you something for something that was given to you, that you won’t lose by giving it away, and there’s no cost of transfer? It’s like finding a goose that lays golden eggs, and hoarding them all to yourself, while expecting anyone who hears the goose to pay you gold for the privilege! Truly, if the Earth and its resources were given for man’s benefit, how can anyone claim for themselves that which extends from the Universal Consciousness: the idea?

Ultimately, the proof of this method lies in its effectiveness. Many long careers have been built on this method, blessing the lives of countless people by their music. All of the music theory, voice lessons, marketing seminars, and sales gimmicks will count for nothing if the music isn’t traveling beyond the musician’s basement walls! How many of the ivory-tower theoreticians are inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, or have platinum albums hanging on the walls of their Malibu homes? Artists will all ultimately be judged not on some abstract or theoretical notions of perfection or originality, but on their achievements!

Practically, we may see that this approach is the easiest for younger artists. Too many young people, filled with the desire to express themselves, have had to set aside music careers for lack of time or experience. This method, that builds on experience, will permit them to learn as their careers grow, without the offending of audiences that may occur through some trial-and-error process. It will also permit them to devote time to the crucial business aspects of their career, such as self-promotion, networking, and industry research. Extra free time will also mean that artists will be able to enjoy the recreation that is essential to abate the stresses of their chosen career.

The theoretical model of this work being established, let us proceed to some objections.

Objections

Let us first dispense with the dreaded "P" word: "Wouldn’t some consider this to be ‘plagiarism?’" They may have that consideration, but they may no more call you a "plagiarist" any more than they can call you a "murderer." Plagiarism, like murder, is legal term that no one may accuse you of without a conviction; to do otherwise is to commit the crime of slander. Such a statement would put them in a far worse legal position than what they imagine yours to be! But since "plagiarism" is a legal term, let us consider whether such a notion is applicable at all.

The term "plagiarism" assumes a willful, deliberate and evident intent to replicate a specific expression of an idea having a valid copyright, and reuse in such a way that causes harm to that copyright holder. You probably already see a way through the trees, but let us proceed.

First of all, who may legally bring a charge of copyright violation? Are there armies of special government agents scouring the internet, radio dial, music stores, libraries and basements looking for potential violators? No! The government doesn’t have the resources to review and track everything ever written! A criminal charge may only be brought (and this only brings a monetary penalty) if the copyright owner (or his agent) first files a civil charge against the alleged infractor (and only if he has previously registered the work in question with the U.S. Copyright Office). It would almost seem as if the government doesn’t even really care! So what about cases where the copyright owner is unaware of the use? He remains unaware! And what if he knows about the use, but doesn’t care? Then neither can anyone else (at least not in a way that matters to you).

Any song (or any other copyrighted material) that has entered into the public domain may be freely copied by any. Under current U.S. law, any created material is automatically granted a copyright, and these copyrights are not likely to expire before the deaths of our great-great-grandchildren, so unless material is explicitly release into the public domain, it is not likely to fall there on its own. But like the nullification of criminal contracts (e.g., you can’t sue a former partner over an illegal gambling operation), no one can sue you for violating their copyright if their material is violating someone else’s copyright! Yet who can claim that their work is truly original? As John Lennon said, "there is nothing new under the sun!" What work could not be traced to previous sources if enough were known about the author and his sources? Further, what is truly a copy other than those produced by electronic or photographic means? Human beings are imperfect creatures, and their slightest involvement in the process will result in an imperfect copy, even when they’re trying preserve the original; but when the creative doors are opened, there can be no doubt that the resulting work is the unique product of that individual. No performance can truly be the same as another, given the variations in:

• Performers
• Instrumentation
• Tempo
• Key
• Vocalizations or words
• Acoustics

Let us also remember that music is a form of art, and that most music is not produced with a direct motive for profits (unless produced by the megastudios). Those committed to the art are not likely to go after their brothers in the trade, and unless your operation transforms into a megastudio, it is unlikely that others would go far to pursue a "starving artist." There is such a thing as "artistic license," and it is true that the artist is not bound by the same rules that apply to other professions, such as engineering, technical writing, journalism, and law. While these fields may produce works against which more rigorous standards may be applied, art remains a very subjective sea that is ever changing, and ever subject to interpretation and reinterpretation.

We should also remind the litigious artist that if they didn’t want people singing "their" songs (or versions thereof), then perhaps they should have kept them in their own heads and not released them! No one forced them to release their songs, but now they desire to force others to conform to their exclusive idea as to what the song should sound like! The arrogance and pride is astounding, and it is a wonder that the legal system offers them any protection or encouragement at all (or perhaps it is just the trial lawyers, and not the system as a whole!).

Some may try to raise ethical flags, claiming that this method is deceptive or dishonorable. It is amazing how many have bought into this corporate line without inserting their own brains into the process! If they were to simply consider where the corporations were obtaining their resources, or at whose expense, they would be demanding that the corporations return to them a part of that which belongs to the people of the Earth! This method does not encourage anyone to deny their sources, unlike these corporations! However, it does not require an artist to pay tribute to the corporate gods, much to their dismay. Let the artist remain silent when it would work against his goals and principles, and when pressed, let him provide the answer that Jesus gave to his adversaries: "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s..." Then ask whose image is on our currency, and how it came to be there.

Some untalented brutes, lacking songwriting experience, may decry what they term your "lack of originality," or accuse you of being too lazy to "develop your own material." They may even go so far as to insinuate that it is your pride that prevents you from admitting that you are having trouble "coming up with songs on your own." What they have failed to realize, however, is that it is God alone who has the power to create. It is their own pride that causes them to believe that they share the attributes of the Creator, and that they can bring something "new" into the world. It can only be supreme stubbornness and the sinful condition of man that can cause him to claim that the work of his hands has led to some benefit that the world should thank him for. Man produces quite a few things: automobiles, skyscrapers, a bushel of wheat, a candle, a gun, a novel, a song, etc. But which of these things are produced without the energy of the earth or the sun? Which of these are not produced from other materials that have just been reorganized in some fashion? Which of these are produced without some measure of waste? These things we produce may all have their benefits, but they are all produced form existing materials, and they all involve some measure of waste. We have not added to the sum total of the Earth and its value; if anything, our effort has detracted from the earth and impaired its value, perhaps irreparably. The myth of human creativity is nothing more than the gradual destruction of the planet!

There are 92 naturally-occurring elements in the universe. All matter in the universe is built with different arrangements of those elements, including the skyscraper, the bread, the xylophone, you, me, etc. Even the "man-made" radioactive elements are constructed from forcing other natural elements together at great velocities, and under extreme conditions (and with great waste of energy). There are only so many things that can be made by recombining these elements in different ways, and most of these "inventions" will be useless for any real purpose. The same is true of music. There are only eight notes in an octave (twelve if you count the black keys). There are only so many ways you can combine these in a way that is pleasing to the ear! There are only so many words in the English language, and only so many ways you can arrange them so that they can convey some intelligent meaning! Here is a piece of news for those who don’t own radios: all of the good notes and words have been used up! There is nothing "original" that can be written or performed! Go ahead: in the next five minutes, try to think up one new line about "love," then try to place it in a new melody. It can’t be done! Everything worth singing about love has already been sung! All that we have left is some limited substitution of words or variations of chords, the rest is meaningless noise.

The charge of laziness is also turned back on the accuser, for this process far excels the one where the artist tries to dream up something on his own without a source for his material. To place the two in a room side-by-side, we would see our student turning out song after song, while the "creative" type struggled to produce even a line on his paper! Thus, we can easily see that is their own laziness and disdain for work that has led them to their own frustrated, limited efforts, and to their desire to quench our productive outpourings.

Some persons lacking musical taste, or with a personal bias against you, may say that you work adds no value, not being as good as the "original" that they are familiar with. Unhappy with your rendition of a song that has moved you, they may ask, "why not just put on a tape? The other guy does a better job anyhow!" What these philistines fail to realize is the role that the musician has in shaping ideas and guiding popular movements. The things that you like, you will also want to promote and see appreciated. Your contributions to songs (through your own listening experience) adds to the art in general, and advances the appreciation of good music. Without your efforts, many may never hear the good things that you have already experienced. This is not about you -- this is about the music! This attitude can be your defense of those who would personally attack you for your art. Realize that in actuality, they are not attacking you, they are opposed to good music itself.

My method has been attacked for not permitting the artist to contribute very much of himself into the music. "Where is the internal guidance of the artist?" they say. "How can the Universal Spirit speak to the listening audience when so much of the content is derived from other sources?" Of course, they are persisting in their "originality" myth, and suppose this process to be a random or mechanical one. They fail to see that the successful musician humbly realizes his own limitations, yet is able to produce a song out of his own experiences. Just as he has experienced and learned from other music, so is he able to take the best pieces of those and transform them into his own work. Such was the approach of Andy Warhol, who found tremendous success in the business of pop art. He was able to connect with the experiences of the public, and had enough business sense to find ways to get his material into the hands of the greatest number of people that he could. His studios became veritable factories where workers took his ideas and produce a staggering array of products that fill homes and museums to the extent that scarcely a person could be found that does not associate his name with his brand of pop art. So successful was he, that his influence in printed art and film persists well after his death; a fitting homage to his commitment to his cause.

Andy Warhol’s successes also speak to the benefits of central planning, for where would his art be if it had just been Andy in his studio, producing items one at a time? How many minutes of fame would he have had? Instead, he realized that he would have to build an organization that could promote and expand his ideas; one that would include employees, volunteers, partners, and even imitators. Not a bureaucratic organization (that would stifle the spiritual forces at work), but a flexible organization built on his leadership combined with voluntary cooperation and unwritten rules of behavior.

So how good was Andy Warhol’s art? Good enough to make him a fortune.

This leads us into another charge of our critics, that of Machiavelianism. They say that we live according to the principle that "the end justifies the means." This argument can also be turned around on themselves, for they are invoking the name of Machiavelli without the slightest care for who the man was or what he accomplished! So, to correct this injustice, let us consider the man, Machiavelli, and what may be learned of him.

Niccolò Machiavelli was a musician, poet, playwright, philosopher and politician who lived in Florence, Italy in the late 15th and early 16th centuries. His writings were widely disseminated and studied, and his best known work, "Il Principe" ("The Prince") is almost universally-required in college political science courses. This work was prepared with the goal of advancing Machiavelli in the eyes of the ruling Medici family, and thus contains some ideas that he was not personally committed to, or that do not necessarily coincide with some of his other writings. Thus, readers should be very cautious about what they claim to be "Machiavelli’s ideas" when they try to use him to bash someone else. Nevertheless, there are some things that we can credit Machiavelli with, and we will consider those in detail, as they apply to our work at hand.

Machiavelli first presents the conditions under which a leader (in this case, the Prince) must govern, and how he is to be successful, given the contradictions that surround him:

...there is such a distance between how men doe live, and how men ought to live; that he who leaves that which is done, for that which ought to be done, learnes sooner his ruine than his preservation; for that man who will professe honesty in all his actions, must needs goe to ruine among so many that are dishonest. Whereupon it is necessary for a Prince, desiring to preserve himselfe, to be able to make use of that honestie, and to lay it aside againe, as need shall require.

The lesson for us is clear: evil men, having no commitments to honesty or morality, will use whatever tools they can to thwart our efforts, ruin our lives, and prevent us from promoting our music. If they can use our virtues against us, they certainly will. We must not permit them to destroy the music that we love! If it means sacrificing ourselves, or temporarily setting aside some of our philosophical principles, then so be it. The music is more important than any individual artist.

Machiavelli lists some of the positive virtues: liberality, generosity, forgiveness, courage, courtesy, chastity, honesty, faith; but he knows all too well that these virtues can never be perfect attained by man:

I know that every one will confesse, it were exceedingly praise worthy for a Prince to be adorned with all these above nam'd qualities that are good: but because this is not possible, nor doe humane conditions admit such perfection in vertues, it is necessary for him to be so discret, that he know how to avoid the infamie of those vices which would thrust him out of his State; and if it be possible, beware of those also which are not able to remove him thence; but where it cannot be, let them passe with lesse regard. And yet, let him not stand much upon it, though he incurre the infamie of those vices, without which he can very hardly save his State: for if all be throughly considerd, some thing we shall find which will have the colour and very face of Vertue, and following them, they will lead the to thy destruction; whereas some others that shall as much seeme vice, if we take the course they lead us, shall discover unto us the way to our safety and well-being.

• Delay a release until we "get it perfect"
• Produce nothing because we can’t be "original"
• Make plain our sources to those who dislike our sources
• Show disdain for another artist’s "lack or originality"
• Don’t learn a new style for fear of charges of "imitation"

The third main concept that Machiavelli presents in The Prince is the management of affections. All men desire to be loved, but it is not a rational expectation that a man will be perfectly loved by all men. Men who realize this usually take one of these approaches in their dealings with others:

• Try to be "all things to all men"
• Try to be loved by those who will bring the greatest personal benefits
• Try to disregard all other men’s opinions about one’s self
• Avoid interaction with others

Yet ought a Prince cause himself to be belov'd in such a manner, that if he gains not love, he may avoid hatred: for it may well stand together, that a man may be feard and not hated.

• Fear of new styles that are not understood or appreciated
• Fear of new technology (instruments, media, etc.)
• Fear of criticism for not keeping up with modern trends in music
• Fear of rejection by a majority of fans
• Fear of lawsuits for violation of copyright

• Present your music as "the latest style" to attract those who fear obsolescence
• Play with traditional instruments, release to traditional outlets and play traditional venues to attract those who fear the modern
• Make your audiences feel good about themselves for keeping up with you; encourage them to spread appreciation for your style
• Present yourself as being loved by the majority
• Give some of your songs away for free

• Prevent opposition from having a voice
• Manage fan-based groups to promote a unified message
• Avoid contentious topics or approaches
• Discourage reviews of your material, whether professional or amateur
• Only promote the most devoted associates in your organization
• Seek to build alliances with other musicians (especially those who use this method)
• Soften hatred by getting your enemies to feel bad about themselves
• Sing about your enemies (without naming them) to make them consider their thoughts and actions
• Give enemies gifts so that they will feel indebted to you
• Gain the favor of their friends, so that the friends will positively influence them on your behalf

Machiavelli realized that men in high positions are often forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Not all circumstances can be perfectly controlled such that an outcome will be equally beneficial for all parties involved. Sometimes the best that can be done is to simply minimize the harm or defer the evil effects.

A Prince, and especially a new Prince, cannot observe all those things, for which men are held good; he being often forc'd, for the maintenance of his State, to do contrary to his faith, charity, humanity, and religion: and therefore it behooves him to have a mind so disposd, as to turne and take the advantage of all winds and fortunes; and as formerly I said, not forsake the good, while he can; but to know how to make use of the evil upon necessity.

The political leader will see evil as anything that harms his people, or would interfere with his ability to bring good to the lives of his people. The musician may similarly view evil as that which harms good music, or interferes with his ability to bring good music to the public. Such evil could present itself in the form of:

• Unreasonable laws and regulations
• Bad music and its listeners
• Organizations that promote bad music
• Musicians of lesser quality that would steal your audience
• Restrictive licensing agreements and contracts
• Other negative economic factors

A politician who fails to make a decision may find that he is responsible for bringing tremendous evil upon his people; when he must choose between morally distasteful options, he should keep in mind the great directive that put him in office: advancement of the welfare of the people. Similarly, if a musician loses sight of the music, he may end up having consequences thrust upon him to the demise of his career. The music is more important than you -- do not shirk hard decisions! Choose the good when you can, but don’t be afraid to embrace the evil if it will advance your music.

The goals of the forces of evil and good are accomplished in this world the rule of law, or the rule of physical force. Criminals are constrained to obey the law, or to be forcibly removed from society. Good men can find their actions thwarted by unjust laws, or criminals take things from them by force. Evil men will make use of the law, or of force, whenever it suits their needs. Good men, however, will be at the disadvantage if the restrict themselves to the law, and are unwilling to use force against the evil. Machiavelli explains:

You must then know, there are two kinds of combating or fighting; the one by right of the laws, the other meerly by force. That first way is proper to men, the other is also common to beasts: but because the first many times suffices not, there is a necessity to make recourse to the second; wherefore it behooves a Prince to know how to make good use of that part which belongs to a beast, as well as that which is proper to a man.

Finally, Machiavelli admonishes his Prince to behave rightly, and to always present the appearance of doing good. Men may observe our outward appearance and public statements, but only God knows the heart. Leaders with very good intentions have been undone because they did not properly communicate those intentions to the public; and many great musicians have seen the end of their careers due to a careless presentation of themselves in public. Machiavelli says:

Let words be seasoned with pitty, all faith, all integrity, all humanity, all religion, for all men in general judge thereof, rather by the sight, than by the touch; for every man may come to the sight of him, few come to the touch and feeling of him; yvery man may come to see what thou seemest, few come to perceive and understand what thou art; and those few dare not oppose the opinion of many, who have the majesty of State to protect them

• Pity for those who are "down on their luck," or have experienced some tragedy.
• Faith in God, themselves, their community, music and even you.
• Integrity as a noble principle, or the integrity of characters in your songs.
• Humanity: show your openness; admit past failures, represent common traits, aspire to greater things.
• Religion: include at least one song on an album that uses religious imagery or terms; this will inspire people and improve their estimation of you. Avoid references to specific denominations or sects, however, lest a bias be introduced.

The Future

The future for music is very promising. We can, through a collaborative effort across time, bring music from today’s mass of muddled notes and words to a vibrant tree of harmony. The public will begin to know and appreciate music better, and will become more intimate with the artists they love. Growing appreciation will result in bigger shows and increased record sales for artists who know how to apply the principles we have been discussing. The public will stay with these artists, because they will have less desire for the "latest and greatest" to tickle their ears.

Schooling will be streamlined for young artists. They won’t need to waste time studying subjects that are outside of their interests, as there won’t be this push to "round out their knowledge," because they won’t have a need to learn and try to apply every new idea or style that is presented. Why learn the science of harmonics or wave theory, or how to play the zither or euphonium if your audience has no use for such material? Students will be taught how to better control they listening and buying habits, so that future generations won’t be plagued by reincarnations of the Beastie Boys and Menudo. Instead of being punished for "copying" songs, students will be taught how to analyze, reinterpret and re-present a good song. Away with the theory and technical details! Away with the history of music, grammar and rhetoric! Let them apply themselves to the principles of growing an audience, managing your business affairs, playing and recording good music, and being loyal to other good artists. Such is the approach of the courageous Bethlehem Booth Music College, that sends hundreds of talented graduates every year into markets across the country! These graduates exhibit less anxiety about "coming up with something new" that stifles so many careers. They know that by following the "tried and true" they will guarantee for themselves a larger measure of success. Future schools will copy this model, and their music programs will hopefully spread to other general-study colleges and universities, to the benefit of all students and artists.

New radio stations and networks will arise that aren’t afraid to play good music. New recording companies will dare to challenge the old model, and new distributors will promote their records. New laws will eventually replace the old, once the authorities realize that opposition to what is universally accepted is futile. A new order, led by the greatest living musicians, will guide people in the listening of good music. The greatest musicians of all time will express themselves through the new leaders, and the world may yet sing