Nice, simple, laidback song. For the second line, you could slide G back one fret to the nut and take off the middle finger in the chord. The fancy D+ is also not needed, just sounds good, you could have D7 instead.
Here's a video of the song with Louis Armstrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCIAVcaPCaI
On a Coconut Island
D+ G
On a coconut island
D7 Db7 D7
I'd like to be a castaway with you
Am
On a coconut Island
D7 G
There wouldn't be so vey much to do
D7 G
I would linger a while and
D7 Db7 D7
just gaze into you lovely eyes of blue
Am
then I'd walk for a mile and
D7 G G7
come running back to be with you
D7 C G
there the waves would make a pair of willing slaves of you and me forever
D7 G D7
and we’d lay for days and days and never gaze out where the ships go sailin by
D+ G
On a coconut island
D7 Db7 D7
I'd like to be a castaway with you
Am
On a coconut Island
D7 G
where we could make our dreams come true
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Copyright and wrong
The article on Creative Commons on the Uke Hunt website's prompted me to write something on why many artists are having to become much more clued in about copyright. http://ukulelehunt.com/2012/04/04/creative-commons/
Not understanding copyright has lead to many artists being hoodwinked out of the rights to their own work. The problem is the law is more and more favoring the distributors of art over the creators. But, the internet means you can distribute your song, book, comic, movie etc without needing a big company like Sony, Penguin or Marvel. You can even fund it's production with kickstarter or bandcamp. Before, book advances or loans to bands to make their first album or albums meant a kind of indentured servitude for artists. Since the production company could claim any cost to release the album (etc) and the artist would not make anything beyond the advance until the production/distribution company said so.
It reminds me of actors who need agents to get work, or perhaps a prostitute exploited by a pimp? Maybe that's going too far!
We need to cut out the middle man.
That is what they really fear, not piracy. It is the loss of their control of the medium of distribution. Sharing helps make unknowns known, and gives them power to make a better deal with a publisher, but what if you didn't need them at all any more? That means learning about copyright, and how to distribute and promote your own work.
Yes, it is all scary red tape, but either you control it or it controls you. Right now, many artists are looking at ways to avoid the quagmires artists of the past got into where the only way they can make money from their own creations is to perform them as they are the only rights they retain. I'll look at a few big examples here, George Michael and Prince are others I'll not go into as this article is long enough!
Copyright was designed, like patents to protect artists and make sure they made some money from their work. The printing press, the internet of it's time, made it cheap to produce multiple copies of work, so to make sure the creator made money, or at least got credit, if that's all they wanted, copyright law was developed. So far so good.
Patent law, was the same idea. If I invent an original way to do something, I can register that idea and get credit and payment for it. Also a good idea.
But things have been slowly going wrong in the last century. Copyrights and patents are more and more being controlled by businesses who have nothing to do with the original creative process. Patent trolls are companies that buy up patents just so they can sue and profit from looking for original ideas that resemble some patent they have and getting money from the person who has tried to develop something new. Companies like Google have bought thousands of patents from Kodak just as a countermeasure to protect themselves from patent trolls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
Things get bad in the music industry too. Have you noticed it is the record companies, not artists fighting for longer copyright protection (up to 70 years now, not 50)? The music Industry now consists of the Big 3, down from the Big 6 in the 80's. 3 companies control most of the music you hear anywhere. It's Warner, Sony and Universal. http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/ontherecord/2011/11/15/the-big-3-or-why-emi-to-umg-means-sfa/ They are the ones fighting to control music. The artists are very quiet aren't they?
Do you hear, for example, the Beatles, Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan fighting to keep ownership of their early 60's hits and keep making money from them, and stop them entering the public domain? No? And the reason is, like many musicians, they were caught out by "work for hire" contracts or simply legal battles where they lost control of their own creations. It's big companies that own their music and they want to keep it that way.
For example, the Rolling Stones big hits before 1971 include Street Fighting Man, Gimme Shelter, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, The Last Time, Jumpin Jack Flash, You Can't Always Get What you Want, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Under My Thumb, Not Fade Away, Sympathy For The Devil, Mother's Little Helper, Get Off My Cloud etc, They only retained the performance rights for those. That's why they're still out there touring. Every record and radio airplay makes money for a company called ABKCO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABKCO_Records. They own lots of artists rights, the company was set up by a manager of the Stones called Allen Klein. He also screwed up the Beatles. Have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein Even though he died a few years ago, his company still controls music by Sam Cooke, The Rolling Stones, The Animals, Herman's Hermits, Marianne Faithfull, The Kinks etc etc. They also sued the Verve over the song Bittersweet Symphony so they now make money from it, not the Verve. Protecting artists eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABKCO_Records
The Beatles is another interesting tale. Northern Songs was set up as a way of reducing the Beatles tax bill, and it owned the publishing rights to many of the Beatles early hits. But they lost control of the company and eventually they ended up being owned by Michael Jackson, but now I think it's Sony/ATV: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs
Bob Dylan is another example, Sony/ATV also own the publishing rights to his songs, as well as Neil Diamond, Taylor Swift and the Jonas Brothers, among others. Just in case you think things have changed.http://uk.eonline.com/news/ask_the_answer_bitch/who_owns_beatles_songs_now_mjs_dead/132304
So, the music industry loves copyright, not artists. Many artists like U2 and Madonna have managed to get good deals due to their business savvy or that of their managers. Paul McGuinness, is referred to as the 5th member of U2 and he has made sure the band stay in control of their careers. Madonna recently moved record company: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/8958741/Madonna-signs-new-record-deal.html She has a good deal with Live Nation so she can make lots of money touring.
The publishing industry also has a disproportionate amount of power over authors works. I've a book out now that makes me 50c per copy even though it sells for $50! That's not unusual at all. That is why authors are turning to kindle and other ebook formats to let them profit more from their own work. A very good thing. Then, if they do well, they can negotiate a better deal with a print publisher.
So, creative commons means you can easily retain ownership of your own creation. But, be very careful when it comes to making money from it. Big record and publishing companies have got very good at ensuring they own your music, not you. If they don't screw you, your management might, look at Allen Klein.
The internet makes the distribution of art cheap: music, books, comics etc. and it threatens a whole industry that has a lot of power.
But make no mistake, its not piracy they fear the most. Most artists know that obscurity is their biggest enemy and free distribution get them known and making a living eventually.
It's artists themselves controlling their own work and not needing the old fashioned distribution methods is what the big companies fear.
So, use creative commons to protect yourself initially, but then make sure you make a deal that doesn't screw you in the long run. That's my message.
Not understanding copyright has lead to many artists being hoodwinked out of the rights to their own work. The problem is the law is more and more favoring the distributors of art over the creators. But, the internet means you can distribute your song, book, comic, movie etc without needing a big company like Sony, Penguin or Marvel. You can even fund it's production with kickstarter or bandcamp. Before, book advances or loans to bands to make their first album or albums meant a kind of indentured servitude for artists. Since the production company could claim any cost to release the album (etc) and the artist would not make anything beyond the advance until the production/distribution company said so.
It reminds me of actors who need agents to get work, or perhaps a prostitute exploited by a pimp? Maybe that's going too far!
We need to cut out the middle man.
That is what they really fear, not piracy. It is the loss of their control of the medium of distribution. Sharing helps make unknowns known, and gives them power to make a better deal with a publisher, but what if you didn't need them at all any more? That means learning about copyright, and how to distribute and promote your own work.
Yes, it is all scary red tape, but either you control it or it controls you. Right now, many artists are looking at ways to avoid the quagmires artists of the past got into where the only way they can make money from their own creations is to perform them as they are the only rights they retain. I'll look at a few big examples here, George Michael and Prince are others I'll not go into as this article is long enough!
Copyright was designed, like patents to protect artists and make sure they made some money from their work. The printing press, the internet of it's time, made it cheap to produce multiple copies of work, so to make sure the creator made money, or at least got credit, if that's all they wanted, copyright law was developed. So far so good.
Patent law, was the same idea. If I invent an original way to do something, I can register that idea and get credit and payment for it. Also a good idea.
But things have been slowly going wrong in the last century. Copyrights and patents are more and more being controlled by businesses who have nothing to do with the original creative process. Patent trolls are companies that buy up patents just so they can sue and profit from looking for original ideas that resemble some patent they have and getting money from the person who has tried to develop something new. Companies like Google have bought thousands of patents from Kodak just as a countermeasure to protect themselves from patent trolls. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
Things get bad in the music industry too. Have you noticed it is the record companies, not artists fighting for longer copyright protection (up to 70 years now, not 50)? The music Industry now consists of the Big 3, down from the Big 6 in the 80's. 3 companies control most of the music you hear anywhere. It's Warner, Sony and Universal. http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/ontherecord/2011/11/15/the-big-3-or-why-emi-to-umg-means-sfa/ They are the ones fighting to control music. The artists are very quiet aren't they?
Do you hear, for example, the Beatles, Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan fighting to keep ownership of their early 60's hits and keep making money from them, and stop them entering the public domain? No? And the reason is, like many musicians, they were caught out by "work for hire" contracts or simply legal battles where they lost control of their own creations. It's big companies that own their music and they want to keep it that way.
For example, the Rolling Stones big hits before 1971 include Street Fighting Man, Gimme Shelter, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, The Last Time, Jumpin Jack Flash, You Can't Always Get What you Want, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Under My Thumb, Not Fade Away, Sympathy For The Devil, Mother's Little Helper, Get Off My Cloud etc, They only retained the performance rights for those. That's why they're still out there touring. Every record and radio airplay makes money for a company called ABKCO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABKCO_Records. They own lots of artists rights, the company was set up by a manager of the Stones called Allen Klein. He also screwed up the Beatles. Have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Klein Even though he died a few years ago, his company still controls music by Sam Cooke, The Rolling Stones, The Animals, Herman's Hermits, Marianne Faithfull, The Kinks etc etc. They also sued the Verve over the song Bittersweet Symphony so they now make money from it, not the Verve. Protecting artists eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABKCO_Records
The Beatles is another interesting tale. Northern Songs was set up as a way of reducing the Beatles tax bill, and it owned the publishing rights to many of the Beatles early hits. But they lost control of the company and eventually they ended up being owned by Michael Jackson, but now I think it's Sony/ATV: http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Songs
Bob Dylan is another example, Sony/ATV also own the publishing rights to his songs, as well as Neil Diamond, Taylor Swift and the Jonas Brothers, among others. Just in case you think things have changed.http://uk.eonline.com/news/ask_the_answer_bitch/who_owns_beatles_songs_now_mjs_dead/132304
So, the music industry loves copyright, not artists. Many artists like U2 and Madonna have managed to get good deals due to their business savvy or that of their managers. Paul McGuinness, is referred to as the 5th member of U2 and he has made sure the band stay in control of their careers. Madonna recently moved record company: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/8958741/Madonna-signs-new-record-deal.html She has a good deal with Live Nation so she can make lots of money touring.
The publishing industry also has a disproportionate amount of power over authors works. I've a book out now that makes me 50c per copy even though it sells for $50! That's not unusual at all. That is why authors are turning to kindle and other ebook formats to let them profit more from their own work. A very good thing. Then, if they do well, they can negotiate a better deal with a print publisher.
So, creative commons means you can easily retain ownership of your own creation. But, be very careful when it comes to making money from it. Big record and publishing companies have got very good at ensuring they own your music, not you. If they don't screw you, your management might, look at Allen Klein.
The internet makes the distribution of art cheap: music, books, comics etc. and it threatens a whole industry that has a lot of power.
But make no mistake, its not piracy they fear the most. Most artists know that obscurity is their biggest enemy and free distribution get them known and making a living eventually.
It's artists themselves controlling their own work and not needing the old fashioned distribution methods is what the big companies fear.
So, use creative commons to protect yourself initially, but then make sure you make a deal that doesn't screw you in the long run. That's my message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)