Van Dyke Parks: How Songwriters Are Getting Screwed

[joshferrell]

I'm fine with it.  I could have just PMed you, but it gave me a chance to talk about a favorite of mine who doesn't get talked about often enough.  So I grabbed at it.  Hope you look into more of his music.

I will, thanks... it's always good to learn about new music 

[Lonely Summer]

If VDP had written a song with Ringo in 1973, it would've been on a hit album, possibly been played on mainstream radio, and sold a million or more copies. I love Ringo, but no one buys his albums these days. That is the major difference - and so it is for every major - or minor - pop or rock star of that generation today. Radio is still the primary - although not the only - vehicle to expose people to new music, and if they ain't playing it, you and i ain't buying it. Except for a few thousand diehards that will buy each and every gasp that artist utters.

he DID give a song to Ringo in 1974..and I don't think it helped with the sales any..Ringo has had some decent albums the last 20 years, better than some that he did in the 70's and 80's..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8aB7WrDZI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsPEsHRBzDM

I really like the Time Takes Time album from 1992, and Vertical Man from '98. I think the difference is now he is recording because he wants to. Back in the 70's, a lot of it was probably just because it was expected of him. He was probably more interested in partying than serious music making in the late 70's/80's.

[leggo of my ego]

I bet secretly Van Dyke must be kicking himself that he turned down the offer to rewrite the lyrics for Good Vibrations.

Van Dyck he's getting to be a Grumpy old man.

then again he seems to have been grumpy as a young man too.

must suck to be him.

[Moon Dawg]

  Van Dyke Parks has become...insufferable. We'd all have a better time hanging out with Mike Love, a much less grumpier old man!

[Orange Crate Art]

I never thought I'd ever say this...but...I don't care what Van Dyke says anymore (not that I understood much of it anyway).

[Tricycle Rider]

All of the following is my humble opinion.

The problem with being hip, is cynicism is unavoidable. Add to that, the fame that was "beneath" Van Dyke as a young man, is bothering him now that he's in his golden years and is pondering his place in it all. Much to his dismay, (I'm sure) he's finding he's not very different from the rest of us. This combination has left him quite grumpy it seems.

The aforementioned hipness/cynicism is also one of the reasons SMiLE crashed and burned.

As much as Brian wanted to be "Hip", it went against his tender, innocent and vulnerable nature.

As brilliant as the resulting work they did was, it was never going to gel for long.

[rn57]

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/06/09/david-carrs-article/

Bob Lefsetz, a long music-biz attorney and executive (ie, a card-carrying member of VDP's most loathed group of betes noires) takes issue with the Daily Beast article.  Van Dyke replied to it in Twitter with the trusty old Pope-and-birth-control line, but I'd prefer to see him get more engaged than that - Lefsetz and Gene Simmons once got into a lengthy, articulate online tussle, and I'd be disappointed if VDP were less inventive and articulate than Gene when called on to defend his opinions.

[SMiLE Brian]

VDP seem mostly dismayed at how the music industry has changed to favor performers vs. studio singer songwriters like himself.

[KittyKat]

Bob L. is a jerk. The same rants over and over, and he makes no sense. I thought Bob's response to Van Dyke was a nasty personal attack. Bob mostly gets his financial support from attending Spotify conferences, so he has bias in regards to streaming. He also lives with Henry Mancini's daughter and lives a lifestyle enabled by the Mancini family trust. I can't take him that seriously because he seems out of touch. His heroes are Don Henley and Irving Azoff.

[phirnis]

Hope he's aware people actually love his work.

[KittyKat]

I don't think Bob knows who Van Dyke Parks is. At all. Which is weird for a guy who pretends to be an industry expert and is totally into old music acts, in spite of pretending to keep up.

I'm not sure why people are so completely opposed to what Van Dyke is saying. The current system does not favor performers over writers, either. Live music is dying out. There are fewer places to perform it and clubs have gone to a pay-for-play format for a few decades. The only winners in the current system are a few legacy acts that can command big bucks, and manufactured artists who have big backing and are pushed to the masses for a round of fame, then mostly disappear. Also, it's worth pointing out that streaming companies are lower payers to artists than terrestrial or satellite radio. As their audience grows, they should at least attempt to raise their rates of payment to artists. But they won't. They want to keep all the money for themselves. You can say, "oh, well, they took the risk and made the investment in their services, so they deserve a rate of return." However, the same can be said for radio. I don't put it all on the streaming companies, though, because it's the public that wants free stuff. At some point, that demand for free stuff results in less music being available as less people go into music in the first place. 

[Ron]

I believe you're wrong about the 'pays less than radio' comment...

I pretty much agree with everything Lefsetz says.  Never heard of him.

[The Heartical Don]

Having read his essay, I'll actually speak for what seems to be the minority here: I agree with VDP. Listeners are less and less likely to pay for music. Sure, there are the deluxe box-set treatment releases that grown-ups buy in a fetishistic zeal. But the average listener isn't buying music very often. VDP complains about Spotify, but that's far from the worst offender for the artist, as there is at least a nominal payment there from either the ads (in the free service) or the subscription fees. Pandora would fit into that category as well, as would Google's music service.

What about youtube? Many of my friends, especially those younger than me, go to youtube as their primary music platform. I don't think there are any royalties coming from youtube views, unless I'm mistaken. (I know that people do work out advertising deals with certain youtube page owners, so presumably someone can work something out that way.) The idea of pirating actual files is passe among many people: they've moved on to the assumption that everything is always there, online, ready for them to hear for free. Why even bother downloading anymore (paid or unpaid)?

No angel and sometimes something of a hypocrite, I certainly use Spotify, and even youtube. As was my professed practice back in my album-leak seeking days (or even promo copies when I wrote), I try to buy what I like after using those other means to make that determination. Really, though, at least intellectually I agree that we all should be paying more for our music. I'm not talking about the high-priced, aforementioned box sets. I'm talking about regular music. It should cost more and we should pay it, with the important caveat that the increase in cost should go to writers and musicians, not executives.

That's my sure-to-be-popular opinion.

Popular with me at any rate, Cap'n.

I agree.

[leggo of my ego]

All of the following is my humble opinion.

The problem with being hip, is cynicism is unavoidable. Add to that, the fame that was "beneath" Van Dyke as a young man, is bothering him now that he's in his golden years and is pondering his place in it all. Much to his dismay, (I'm sure) he's finding he's not very different from the rest of us. This combination has left him quite grumpy it seems.

The aforementioned hipness/cynicism is also one of the reasons SMiLE crashed and burned.

As much as Brian wanted to be "Hip", it went against his tender, innocent and vulnerable nature.

As brilliant as the resulting work they did was, it was never going to gel for long.

Is that you Van Dyke? Great summarization!

[Tricycle Rider]

All of the following is my humble opinion.

The problem with being hip, is cynicism is unavoidable. Add to that, the fame that was "beneath" Van Dyke as a young man, is bothering him now that he's in his golden years and is pondering his place in it all. Much to his dismay, (I'm sure) he's finding he's not very different from the rest of us. This combination has left him quite grumpy it seems.

The aforementioned hipness/cynicism is also one of the reasons SMiLE crashed and burned.

As much as Brian wanted to be "Hip", it went against his tender, innocent and vulnerable nature.

As brilliant as the resulting work they did was, it was never going to gel for long.

Is that you Van Dyke? Great summarization!

Thanks, Leggo!

I almost refrained from posting it because, (for some reason) I've always been uncomfortable sharing my opinions about things.

 

[Ron]

You shouldn't be uncomfortable, that was very well stated and not just because I agree with you