JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum Difference between Liking and Appreciating

I could go through all the top hits of any year, and not like many of them, love some of them, roll my eyes and turn off instantly others, etc, but is that being good, or is it being good or bad for my tastes.

A step further, when you listen to a song here, are you judging on whether you like it, or whether you think its good?

For example, I can hear a song, read the lyrics and think everything is well done, good craft, but walk away thinking what a bore that song is...i can also hear something that sounds rough, has some technical blemishes but for some reason I like it

Makes you wonder how songs are ever picked. Do publishers listen to what they like, or do they have a check list of things it must have...isnt the whole purpose to like the song?

I have to admit I dont like many songs I hear here, and thats by no means an insult, I dont even like some of my own songs...lol. But being that I could loathe a top hit, must mean that its all subjective.

I think when people are listening here, they listen to see if it sounds good, not neccessarily if they like it. Cause again, I dont like some smash hits.

So what exactly are we judging?

Makes me think of the ratings system in general.
There are movies, tv shows and albums that I have not been completely satisfied with that I liked.
But there are some that I have liked that don't stand out as much.
I guess it comes down to a core audience and what is aggressively persued.
Hats off to them.

"Makes you wonder how songs are ever picked. Do publishers listen to what they like, or do they have a check list of things it must have...isnt the whole purpose to like the song?"

One of the things most people don't understand about publishers, is they actually do both. Publishers usually have a catelogue of songs of all kinds, subject matters, various stages of recordings, etc. ready to go. They also often have staff writers and friends who are submitting songs on a daily basis. So there is no end to the amount of songs. They never have to look anywhere. It all comes to them.

They do have songs, writers and artists they like, but they also know what is going on with trends, what artists are coming up ,what artists are about to be dropped, what producers are out there, what they will listen to, what the don't listen to. Yes, there are check lists. There are "behind the scenes" conversations, inside information talked about on golf courses, at parties, etc. They often know of new and upcoming artists, months or years before the general public even knows who they are. The inner circles are very tight. The actual decision makers are usually friends and competitors. So there is lot of "street" or "buzz" information going on.

There are also TRENDS. These will pop up sometimes by songs or artiists, going viral, that no one ever even saw. Some thing comes out of nowhere and becomes the "NEXT BIG THING." Suddenly everyone is looking for songs, other artists that are just like that. It breeds jokes like:

"WHO IS GARTH BROOKS? (TAYLOR SWIFT, KEITH URBAN, LADY GA GA.....insert famous artist here)
"GET ME SOMEONE LIKE GARTH BROOKS."
"FIND ME THE NEXT GARTH BROOKS."
"WHO IS GARTH BROOKS?"

The truth is NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO BE A HIT. They spend literaly millions of dollars on songs, artists, projects, etc. taht DON'T WORK, to get to the one's that DO WORK. If they KNEW what was going to work and be a hit, they would ONLY DO THAT. Same with television pilots, movies in different stages of development, Internet productions, that go no where, etc. A LOT of stuff out there. Not much reasonates with the public.

And yes, they have plenty of things they believe in. Songs they like. Artists they believe in. Much that they put their MONEY in as well as their belief. HAve you ever seen an artist, heard a song, seen a television show, movie, or internet sensation, and you wonder, "HOW IN GOD'S NAME DID THAT EVER GET UP THERE?"
and EVERYBODY AROUND YOU RAVES ABOUT IT? And you JUST DON'T GET IT?
Or, conversely, have you ever heard a song, seen an artist, a television show, movie, Internet sensation that you go "THAT IS THE MOST AMAZING THING I'VE EVER SEEN!!!" And Yet NOBODY ELSE SEEMS TO GET IT? They dissapear overnight, and become answers to trivia questions.

That's the deal. All of this is relative and based upon reasonating with the GENERAL AUDIENCE. It's a crap shoot. But yes, they have songs they like, they believe in and put money into and they have things that they may not believe in as much but fits the peramaters of the people they are playing the songs for. Another aspect to keep in mind, is that now, more times than not, the ARTIST and the WRITER are the same, and the publishers are presenting both as artist pitches to labels. So that is another part of the process.

MAB

Star power matters. A big star can have people loving something that is lifelessly formulamaic.
An obscure person could likely not sell Stairway to Heaven.

imho, as a casual and un-credentialed observer..."great" songs garner widespread acclaim and make money. Like "great" generals and politicians. they may be truly excellent in several ways or mostly lucky. Ultimately, for whatever reason...they sold and became a piece of the culture....hence achieved GREATNESS.

As for songsites...most of the people who post (including me) are not very good musicians, vocalists etc. ESSENTIALLY, we submit partially sung poems with a guitar strumming roughly in the background (or something else) and tell each other how we would have written the poem versus how the song poster wrote it. ...and /or recite something from a Jason Blum book.

A harsh view...we are painstakingly dressing our daughter for a grand gala-ball, but in most cases, she is not actually very pretty and not actually going to the ball. But we often argue about whether or not she is.

(side note...for a song to be "pretty" it has to sound good. There are exceptions to every rule ,TVZ, Dylan and the like...but that is the rule.)

Having said that...if you love to endeavor to write songs because it brings you pleasure...you are in a good place to do it.


The opinions of this author...are just that.

That's correct. Something that always sort of bothers me with some writers are LACK OF CONTEXT, when it comes to songs. Over my years as an evaluator, teaching workshops, working with private writers and artists, etc. on songwriting, and certain songs, there are always writers that have this 5, 6, 7 and 8 minute songs that tend to drift around, really don't ever get their points across, and are more "tone poems" than actual songs. When you say something about how hard it is to get people to focus on songs to begin with, much less some of these "long forays" they will bring up the same things: "Inna Gadda Divida", "wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, American Pie, Stairway to Heaven, some of Dylans songs, "Like a Rolling Stone."

CONTEXT is always in order. By the time Zepplin got to Stairway, they had dozens of hits, on their other records. "Whole Lotta Love" "Rock and Roll" and their tours were HUGE. So by the time "Stairway" came along, they were cemented in the firmiament of rock and roll.They could have done anything and sold millions of records. Same with most all artists throughout history. "Amerian Pie" was one of Don McClean's hits along with Vincent and others. But that one hit like nothing else. Gordon Lightfoot had "SUNDOWN" "IF YOU CAN READ MY MIND" and was already a standard on FM radio before "FITZGERALD."
And to be honest, those longer songs are usually VERY WELL WRITTEN. Many hold up today and some are even more popular. "BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY" is arguably one of the most famous songs in rock history. Again, had Queen not had a HUGE track record before that song, it probably would not have done that. But today it is still very well written and constructed. A pleasure to listen to from beginning to end.

Also, you have to consider the advent of "flower power" experimental music, and of course, the advent of FM radio, where an 18 minute song with a 7 minute drum solo allowed the DJ to go eat, go to the bathroom, smoke pot, or....other things. Long solos and extended songs were a staple of that format, back where the guitar player, drummer, keyboards, bass solos, were as big a part of the music as the song itself. It was actually the standard.

Then time and formats changed, and actually changed back to where it was before the 60's and 70's, with shorter formats, clear channel, and now the Internet and the shorter attention spans, getting and keeping attention is one of the hardest things to do even on shorter songs.

But yes, star power can have a lot ot to with the success of a song. All in the context of those songs.

Thanks for the input guys.... Marty, remember sounding pretty is not as simple as its been made to seem. As I said before, BIAB can sound good ish, or even great ish, but maybe not as great ish, as stuff you hear on the radio, which is the competition.

Back to the OP, I think it is possible to discern between what is good and what you like, but they do cross over into each other.

But, lets take Beethoven, Mozart, ... any of those greats, we know they are great, we know how amazing their compositions were, we know how well studied and musically spot on they are.... but do we like listening to it? Ill be honest, I never listen to any of them, and dont really like it, Jazz musicians blow me away at how musical they are, and how much practice and dedication it takes to get to that level, I see the greatness in it, but do I love listening to it?

Also think if somebody posted a dance tune, as some have, I have no interest in it, but I think I can still tell if its good or not. The basics of sounding like chit, no matter what genre, are always there.

But you can also understand...ok this guy is trying for a dance hit, let me not interfere by saying the melody needs work, or compare it to my standard of great.... aha..... maybe thats it. We can still look at it from a point of view of "is this song or track up to the standard of similar tunes in that genre...."

Think I got it! ive always done that anyway. Id be the wrong guy to tell somebody if their speed metal song is good, but I can still tell if the guy has any talent, or wasting his time. or advise more practice!

LOL MAB, Was Stairway to Heave a typo or a comment on the song? I don't actually like any of those songs, not because they are long but because, except for Bohemian Rhapsody, they are boring, especially The Wreck of The Edmund Fitzgerald. It's a stirring tune, but how about a little variation in the melody, Gordon? Is that too much to ask?

Fd

One reality that everyone here really should come to full terms with is that....

For a song to be good, it has to sound good. There are arguable exceptions but that is the rule.
If a song does not sound good "at a glance," it is prolly a lousy poem also.

I agree, but what is sounding good....

It has to sound good because the listener wont be able to know if its good or not, without it sounding good.

But you have to remember, their are people who can write, but cant sing or play. It might be a mistake to say the song isnt good judging by the recording of it.

There is also a difference between a song, and a track...or recording of a song.

Not sounding good can easily get you cut, your song dissed, your song dismissed...

But, the reality is the song was still there, it just couldnt shine.

I think The Beatles were great songwriters, but even better singers, performers, arangers, record makers.

Its the whole 9 yards

Sounding good? Within practical limits.

Chris Stapleton has a song on the radio now that is just him and a guitar.
Prolly was recorded in a top studio.
Could have conceivably been produced in a good home studio with a $600 mic, real good plug-ins and a skillful sound engineer.
If it had been done in a home studio, it may not be as good as a top flight studio recording..but it would have been close and still pretty good.

If a typical group of listeners heard a song and thought it was good without even questioning exactly how good or technically good...then for all practical purposes...it's good.

If it sounds like some gumball singing semi-intelligibly into an empty dog food can..it's not good. May have good lyrics but it is a bad song.

Thats a bit like saying a gorgeous woman wearing a halloween mask is ugly

I agree, just cause something is acoustic and vocal, doesnt mean big time recording techniques werent used, and mainly big time gear.

And yes, it wouldnt have sounded as good.

Then again Springsteens Atlantic City, off Nebraska, was recorded on a four track cassette recorder, in is hotel room, after carrying it in his pocket for weeks thinking it was just a demo. He later decided to release as is. Because its a songwriting album, it got critical acclaim.

So yes, great production helps. But you do have to ask what if everybody has the same sounding demo? Than which one is gonna stand out?

Atlantic City... it sounds good, but not on par with records of the day...and started a new trend of lo fi recordings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3eu1gW-bQ8

No.

It's like saying that the engineers at Porche could greatly enhance any entry level car with time and money. They could, but if they never do, then the car remains basic and possibly promising...but nothing great.

Ok understood, but you are in a sense saying that songwriters have no skill, if they dont record their own stuff..or pay to have it done.

There's a screenplay, then there's actors who act it out

I'm not saying anything about any particular person's skill. I am saying that a given song either rises to the bar or fails to.

A few years ago when my passion for this songwriting hobby ignited...I agreed with what you are saying.
I saw songs as progressing along a developmental continuum. And I believed that a good song at an early rough stage was better than a bland song finished with bells and whistles. A beautiful woman has to have good bone structure.

People would occasionally say that nobody is even going to give your song a listen unless it sounds finished and good, regardless of potential. I didnt fully believe that, but now I do. Now I think that for a song to be good, it has to first, sound good to the ear's of groups of random listeners.

Personally, I've expanded my hobby to distrokid. At this point, almost entirely alone, I am able to produce mp3s that are acceptable (not great examples of engineering, but acceptable) to the major online stores through distro kid. The progress of my songs is measured in pennies, but my goal is for a stranger to like what they hear well enough to stream my song. My "goal" is to get strangers to stream my songs more than once. I am absolutely convinced that if they dont like the sound that they immediately hear and continue to hear...it ends right there.

So for me...a song can only be good if it has enough appeal to cause someone to listen. And there is no hope of that if it is not truly finished and reasonably good sounding. And then it has to be appealing. And even then...any measurable success is a very very long shot.

But I enjoy trying.

This discussion seems to me to reflect the shifting relative importance of songwriting and production. If you watched the Weekend's Superbowl halftime show, I think you can see just how important the skill of production has become. There is nothing special about his music as far as melody is concerned and the lyrics are not brilliant, but the package obviously works. It doesn't do anything for me because I like to be moved by music but many, many people love it. So this seems to demonstrate that you can take a bland song and gussy it up with skillful production techniques and achieve a marketable product. I'm not sure that works in reverse. These days in mainstream pop, it's all about the production.

Of course, if you start with a good song to begin with then you can end up with something far better.

I'm not sure that it shifts the importance to production Gavin. That has always been important from what I read.

I've always been told that if a songwriter wanted to be taken seriously by music business people, their demos had to sound very good. Not just to give an idea of the song but deliver the song. To be taken seriously, people did not want to have to imagine how good your song might be. They wanted to hear how good it is.
I'm sure there were and are a lot of insider relationships worked out on pianos and guitars, but anything presented at arm's length needed to deliver a clear idea of the product. Or so, I've always believed.

What I think has changed is access to the tools.

As for pop music songwriting...consider Madonna? "Like A Virgin?" Those were not the golden days of song merit. The Weekend is, at the very least, that good.

Gavin, Im not a fan of the weeknd...gotta spell it wrong/right

But his hit 'blinded by the light" (which cmon he stole from Bruce) but that is a very catchy and emotive song, regardless of production. It may not have all the pieces of a great song, but it is a great pop track. I cant honestly say I know any other song...lol but thats a massive hit. when i first heard it It made me think of 80's

Production has ALWAYS mattered, going back to The Beatles, and Sinatra before that. SInatras arrangements were things of beauty

Its just today the song doesnt have to be as good.

WHen people hear something on the radio they say...I love this song, or I hate this song.... but in reality, their opinion is bsed on the recording of the song, cause thats what they are hearing. They dont hear songs, thats a publishers job

But Marty, TS and other sites were founded on the backs of no performing songwriters. It wasnt until home recording came around did it get away from that.

The better song may NOT sound better or be better liked than anything else. But in order for production to be effective, you need a strong melody, you need hooks, some catchy lines, and if you care to go deeper a good story to tell. Also need a unique singer, something slightly different overall than anything else.

But all of these things are part of the craft. I hear alot of BIAB users, and it sounds like they are throwing songs together to BIAB. whereas it should be BIAB should be thrown together to support the song.

Your song is your only shot you have to be somebody in songwriting. Cause none of us are coming near Macca, or Neil Young, or Me, the talent thats in the world both former and current is mind blowing. Millions sing better, play better, record better, write better, produce ad arrange better, the only difference is what you do is yours

Whats Neil Young, Tom Petty, Bruce, Billy Joel without songs? Rather ordinary compared to the mass of musical talent in the world

Great Groove, Great Keyboard hook, Great Vocal Hook. Not saying im going to his concert...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHI8X4OXluQ

In 20 years after the last of the 80's hit artists pass on and those from the 90's are mostly done as well, I doubt we will have any middle class music makers. It will be all corporate fed garbage that people won't really care about and the rest of music will only exist in homes on front porches as it once did. They used to feed the elites music, then no one else made money outside roaming troubadours that would visit a town and get fed and housed for the night before strolling on. And then the families would play what they heard at home, only in this case it will be push buttons to let a program make all the sounds. Then music will be about passing time between working to serve the elites or working to cobble together food for the day to survive. That is how the oligarchs want it and 98% of us are obeying every step of the way.

Brian

Never was a Nirvana fan, but this video returns to Fd's original post. It is very inciteful if you watch the entire thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1ZnWc-sFd0

Also...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWp417CF7fY

I was never a big Nirvana fan either. I think when yu listen to their music, its not hard to imagine Kurt killing himself. It just has that vibe about it.

The legend is that Nirvana completely changed the face of rock music, suddenly 80's pop was done, 80's metal done, grunge took over the airwaves. And that was true, but I think radio embraced it cause it was looking for something new and different. not because of how talented they were

The guy makes some good videos, I think we should have a section "what makes this song great" so we can discuss it.

Notice not ONE thing was said about the lyrics lol. not ONE thing. Thats cause the lyric is incoherent and just mumbo jumbo.

Which is fine, much of rock music doesnt have much to offer by way of lyric

He also said when speaking of all the intervals used "i know you guys are probably think, Kurt Cobain didnt know what he was doing" Also true, he was not sitting there saying, I need a flat 9, and a way to play these intervals. My personal feeling is he was just a scary dude, with issues, and he managed to express it well just by singing. "Hey, this sounds weird and angsty, good"

It also goes back to my post about tempo changes and dynamics. Something, that most home recording people dont consider, or are unable to consider.

Nirvana were huge, i remember how the radio sounded shortly after this release, but I think it was more about timing, looking for something different, and they were the spark.

If it spoke to a generation of Angst ridden youths, it didnt do it with lyrics.

I personally prefer Foo Fighters, with Dave Grohl as singer and guitar, instead of him on drums with Nirvana And have to wonder if Cobain didnt kill himself, would Dave ever have come out from the drums and start his own band?

But we should have a section where we all post songs to dissect

Yep. sound, sonic, sing, song....sufferin succotash,
Lyrics are indispensible but a song aint a song with being a sound first and foremost.

Were still gonna disagree there. Have you ever written a song in your head? I do it all the time

Well, are you able to imagine sound that lucidly and play it back in your mind?


Your answer will be..."Of course I am. It's just one aspect of being the most special boy in the whole wide world."


Well then, you've reinforced my point.

always gotta come back to insults.

I hear melodies and grooves and riffs in my head...ALL the time. Does not make me special, or a genius, or even good, but I hear them. When I do, I dont hear it as a "Ok Stratocaster, into a Vox amp. I hear the melody, singing a capella in my head. Sound has nothing to do with it in such a case. I hear a riff, I dont hear it through this software or that one, I just hear a riff. For others, maybe they are so used to sounds, they hear it as they imaginarily play their instrument

I think you're taking it too far with sound. Yes a song makes a sound...but the ole philosophical "if a tree falls in a forrest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound" NO, it does not.

But your arguments are not really holding up. Maybe thats why your starting with insults.

I didnt regard it as an insult. I was kidding with..."the most special boy in the world." (similar to Beethoven who composed while deaf) I put the little smiley face at the end.
Kidding seemed appropriate in response to someone "pulling rank" on me in a debate by claiming to be a neo-Beethoven and not even needing to be able to hear sound to write great music. Maybe you can write entire songs, entirely with the voice in your mind...but I'd have to watch you in action to fully believe it. And that claim doesnt become the basis for having won the argument.

Maybe it is you who cant take a joke. If you are going to turn most everything into a debate, learning to take a joke would be a good skill to possess.

Until then...my side of the argument is correct about a song needing to make a good sound to be a good song. Believe otherwise if you like but risk living and acting in accordance with a false perception.

Many years ago in the 60's before the Beatles, We went into a music store and listened to a 45 on a RCA player. Then the 45 cost a quarter--I had just come back from Europe in the USAF--I was into Jazz in Germany, and got used to music from the states taking 6 months to get over there. Stan Kenton, Benny Goodman, Sinatra, and others were timeless. and very cheap in the PX (Post Exchange). I bought a Grundig Tape recorder (mono) and recorded USA music--the quality was rough, but at least I had something current I could listen to!

Now most all genres are on Youtube, pretty high quality, and free.

I drive down Broadway in Nashville, though Corona V, has put the skids to Country--now small crowds: WITH THE VOLUME TURNED UP IN THE MANY BARS--Singles acts and local bands playing the top 40, and mixed in are some original songs.

The Grand old Opry is back on CIRCLE/ALL ACCESS TV SATURDAY NIGHTS--I am enjoying streaming the 1 hour shows, and you can go back and listen to any later.

WITH ME MUSIC IS AN AVOCATION, AND MY TASTES HAVE EVOLVED TO FOLK, COUNTRY AND BLUES--EVEN A LITTLE ZYDECO WHILE I EAT BREAKFAST!

A GREAT SONG IS ONE THAT STANDS THE TEST OF TIME IN MY MIND--THERE HAVE BEEN MANY, EAGLES, STONES,, BEATLES, FOLK AS WELL AS, MANY COUNTRY ARTISTS--I REMEMBER [color:#FF0000]MABA LEFT HANDER UPSTART PLAYING IN THE ROUND AT SONG WRITERS NIGHTS[/color]

Music in the 50's-- a great song may stay on the charts 10-20 weeks--now only a few stay at the top a few weeks.

I go back and listen to a lot of the classics--I have 1000 or more albums and hundreds of CD's--at one time I had a lot of 8 Teacks and cassettes; I have given most of them away!

Brian is right, with his assessment of the industry control--YOU ONLY HEAR WHAT THEY DECIDE THEY CAN MAKE MONEY ON--WHAT A SHAME!

i'm thinking about building a shovel guitar--SEE JUSTIN JOHNSON ON YOUTUBE--ALL OF HIS MUSIC IS INSTRUMENTAL!

Mackie

I can go on YouTube right now and hear most any song that I can think of in my entire lifetime. For free. I can go on Soundcloud and listen to Indies non-stop for years. That was never possible before Youtube, SC etc. I never dreamed it would be possible in 1985. In 1985, I had to buy a $15-$20 album if I liked only one song on it.

Are the globalists gonna deal everyone out of the music profits except the select few? I dunno? My guess is they will if they can. But with regard to access to galaxies of music including Indie music for a causal listener...no time in history has ever been more bountiful than right at this moment.

Marty= a song must make a sound. One way or another it makes a sound. If you dont think its possible for me to write a song in my head, try it yourself. Its not that difficult

And I kid you not, I have gone through long periods of time without even OWNING a guitar. I had a $2000 blonde tele stolen from me. I had several hack guitars that broke down on me, I had two acoustics break, and my dog peed on one.

I used to write songs in my head all the time, and can still do it. In fact, I had recording gear, and didnt even have a guitar to work with. I would write the whole melody, lyric, without even knowing what chords the songs were.

I also would lay down the drum machine tracks to the song, even though I didnt even KNOW my song. I had the melody, verse chorus bridge, and id go straight to drums. lol I had dozens of songs with a vocal and drum machine

Im not talkin extravagant melodies or compositions, but I wasnt going to be writing them anyway. I was a pop/rock guy.

I had a casio which I would then lay down the chords. It didnt sound good, but at least I was learning my song.

But it seems your stuck on this idea that a song is only good, if you have a good recording of it. No matter what you do, the song comes before anything else. Unless you write from tracks

If the argument is you need a well produced demo to stand a chance, i would agree 100%. But thats more about presentation, than quality of song

When I gain consciousness around 4 to 6 in the morning sometimes...sometimes melodies will play almost as lucidly in mind as if they were actually playing on a speaker in the bedroom. I can passively listen to them rather than forcefully imagine them. Sometimes I will sit up and hum them into my phone recorder. Most times not. I think that phenomenon is true for a lot of people.

But that does not become the basis for making a claim that I can write music in my head. I think that there are people who can. You may be one, but I would have to see you do it to actually believe it. Until then, I am afraid, that all of this brings Brad Paisley and Jason Alexander to mind.

And the claim... in no way invalidates the claim that a good song does have to sound good to actually be a good song.

Youd have to see me do it? You dont think Im capable of writing ole mcdonald had a farm...in my head?

Im telling you ive written much more complex music than that entirely in my head.

And if you wish, once we all get this youtube thing up and running. You can start me off with something to write about, a basic melody, a basic lyrical idea, and Ill write the whole song live in front of you. This so you cant claim i had the song already, if you start me off with something

I hear tuns before and after waking too. Subconsious is open.

A song has to sound good to be a good song... does a bad song have to sound good too?

LOL...I told you that you were the most special boy in the whole wide world. What else can I say? LMAO.

As far as bad songs sounding good? Couch says that you write bad songs....so, you tell me. LMAO

"LOL MAB, Was Stairway to Heave a typo or a comment on the song? "

Lol! That's pretty funny Gavin. Sorry about that. Was a typo, but I've felt that way about some of those songs from time to time. I always bored pretty easily so was not really impressed by those overly long songs either. Was just referring to the length of songs.

On Edmund Fitzgerald, yeah I always felt the same thing. "Damn! This song goes on longer than it took the ship to sink!" I recently read this biography on Gordon Lightfoot and that "Monotone vocal" that Gordon did was what his fans expected and wanted. That was kind oif his deal. If you listen to all his music, most of them are pretty much the same minimum in melody. Again, this is part of the "looking beyond the song" on songs. What makes for "HITS"? Who can determine them?
Basically it's the public.

There are many many many things in music history, particularly in the past 10-20 years ,that I'd wonder "HOW IN THE WORLD DID THAT BECOME A HIT?"
But I'm not a customer for any of that, so it makes no real difference to me. When I work with other people, my main thing is to try and help them to write songs that do one thing. GET PEOPLE TO PUT THE CELL PHONE DOWN FOR A FEW MINUTES.
Getting, and keeping attention for a few minutes is the real challenge of the day.

I think that Brian has it mostly right that in the future, music will mostly be on the "front porches" of social networking. There will always be some artists and songs that break through, and people will be as befuddled as ever that they did. No one can predict it, no one will be able to know till it rises up. But unless you get someone to put the cell phone down and actually LISTEN to what you are doing, it's gonna be hard to go forward from there.

MAB

"But unless you get someone to put the cell phone down and actually LISTEN to what you are doing, it's gonna be hard to go forward from there" - Marc

Sad that a damn cell phone can over power music. I remember wearing 45's out playing them over & over. It was magic. Music made you dream. Most "hits" of today, I can't listen for more than a few seconds without getting depressed. Okay, so I'm a disgruntled old geezer. Bring the magic back!

Disgruntled John

I donno John, It used to make me dream too, but we all dream when were young. We dont dream as much when we get older.

I used to sit with headphones on and listen to album after album full length, but if im being honest, i think it has alot to do with all the entertainment we have.

We had three channels on tv growing up, gilligans island was never going to be my first choice of tv, but that was on, so I watched it, f troop, was on too, all re runs. But that was it, music was a savior. During the summer, my brother and I talk about how we played baseball every day of summer, yes we loved baseball, but we were also bored with nothing else to do. no net, no video games, yes we had basic tv and a phone but it wasnt a cell lol

I think whats happening, music is now something to do while doing something else. Amazes me how kids can still be bored, they never had it so good. but music reflects that, we dont need music any more as a main dish, maybe WE do, us musicians, but people in general dont need it like they used to.

Thats why its not as good either. My story and im sticking to it

The amount of music available to hear today is galactic. It is largely free. It is omnipresent. And it comes at us from many many many sources. And it can be easily and immediately obtained from the phone in your pocket.

Young people drown themselves in it to the point of boredom and then they need some sort of novel fix to up the stimulation. So they search, sort through and move on. Additionally music is competing for their attention with their texting, social media interactions, and misc things that catch their attention such as Youtube videos, Tiktok and Bernie Sanders memes.

The genie aint going back in the bottle. It is re-configuring brains and central nervous systems and the world at this time. Imho...the interconnected world of today is magnificent and wondrous, but there have been many unintended or , at the least, unwanted consequences.

That is all going to change. This stuff is free so they can build an impenetrable brand so big and powerful no one else can compete. Meanwhile they have 100% destroyed the middle class in music and in the wider world as well. Now you can't conduct ANY business online and get significant advertising without using Google in some way just like you must use Amazon if you hope to sell online successfully. No one can compete and next I predict (and I will be right) that the Social media companies will demand HEAVY regulation which will be onerous to them, but will 100% eliminate ANY competition from even starting. This has always been their endgame. They have done it to all music makers. Digital sites have destroyed any ability to make music for a living unless you play ball with the oligarchs. Gone are the days of touring, selling CD's or other forms of your music. They have destroyed most live venues and any left standing will have to partner with larger entities just like they destroyed local and regional banks during Obama's first term. Now only Live Nation venues will be able to exist outside of a coffee shop which can't pay musicians enough for them to live. You can't sell your music as it has no value. There is limitless supplies. It is grim.

Soon, you won't be able to use YouTube unless you pay a netflix like membership fee. Same with having your own channel. That will ALSO cost you. And you'll have no other viable options. Soundclick isn't going to help you make a living in music.

We'll keep fighting the good fight, but for most, be happy making music. Make it for yourself first. Then see if you can find an audience. Build your own small fanbase. 5K fans. I have been pitching the 5000 Fan Theory since the early 90's. People have ripped it off and tried to claim it, but I invented it and have pushed artists to take that approach and many have and can STILL make a living because of it. I see no other pathway to make a living outside a partnership with a major corporation unless you are already famous.

Brian

If all of that happens, i'd say that illegal music downloading will then start up again. Kids are already stealing original netflix shows online.

Remember Napster? I guess it was mid 90's early 2000's, kids were spending 24/7 dowloading music illegally. I guess they gave up cause they realized they couldnt prosecute every kid who downloaded music. But that was really the start of it. They are so used to getting music free, they will just go back to that. They were never able to stop it, and probably wont be able to again.

When I was a kid I had a paper route, and could only buy my absolute favorites. 12 bucks for an album or cd, was rediculous, especially compared to now where kids have multiple pcs filled with songs.

Its good in a way, cause there is no way anybody could afford even 100 albums...as a kid, let alone thousands and thousands. So it gives artists a chance to be heard. How they make money is another story, but its great for the listener!

Yeah, it's actually much grimmer than most people realize because the problem is actually two fold.

The first is endless product for free. For over 20 years, the world has gotten as much free product as they could ever want. Billions of songs, millions of artists, and all types of creators. Same with photographers, article writers, book authors, anything that is of a creative nature. The lifeblood is the Internet, but the very thing that is nearly impossible to monitor and regulate is the Internet. They' aint paying. Doesn't matter what law you throw up, they'll break it. Many of the providers and platforms are in countries that there is no jurisdiction on One of the biggest of the illegal sites, PIRATE BAY, operates out of Sweden and there is no chance of getting any jurisdictions over that. You are also dealing with countries and governments that belive in all things free all the time, and that there should be no borders, no regulations, no governence of any kind. "Imagine their's no countries...not so hard to do..." Thanks John Lennon. The "Peace and Love, tune in drop out" generation pretty much engineered their own destruction.

The second is endless artists. And with each generation, they get more entitled, more demanding, more ego filled, and less and less ability. It's the "bad cassette day" scenario. In the "old days" you might get an album or buy the cassette of that album. And you would make a copy for a friend .Who would make a copy from that copy, who would make ten copies from those copies, who would make 100 copies from those copies, and so forth and so on. With each generation, the sound got worse and worse.

That is the generation of younger people that come to music now. They can write what they call a song, tome poetry, get some beats, redially availabile on the Internet, completely engineered tracks, band in a box, guitar hero, whatever, or just throw chords against a wall and that's it. They can throw it on their phone, record full tracks on their phone, record the video on their phone, put it on FACEBOOK, YOU TUBE, and whatever new platform of the minute is, and boom they are in the music business. They get "likes" from their friends and family and they are stars in their own minds. The concept of money to them doesn't really exist because it has never existed within their realm of information. And that over glut of everything crowds out any "real music" (which is a definition that changes by minute) and money in music is a foriegn concept that doesn't really exist anymore.

And it all suffers. Radio is a migmash of garbage, Music and all entertainment is a reality television show., The Kardashians are actually the rule now, rather than the exception. The era of CELEBRITY has replaced the ERA OF THE SONG. With a general public that has an 8 second attention span, they are pre-disposed to move on past a song after a few minutes if they get that far. It's always the search for something else. Surfing is the norm.

Along with that comes the CANCEL CULTURE, where you say one wrong thing, tweet one thought or idea that someone doesn't agree with, and you are deplatformed, erased and ended. Period. No grace period, no second chances, nothing. You no longer exist.

There will always be people that try to do this. Somehow, somewhere, there will be people, songs, entities that exist and break through. But they will be very very short. Brian's "5000 fan scenario" is actually the most relevent I've seen. We are all in a "NICHE WORLD" now. Find a niche, find an audience, fight for every second of attention, spend your life and sometimes your income on expanding and developing that niche. The chances of overall world wide success are almost nil, but people try. There are also Casinos and lottery's and people try those too.

Music is no longer in the forefront of our lives. It is in the background. It is something some people listen to, along with the billions of electronic pieces of information they have floating in their lives, streaming services, NETFLIX, HULU, YOU TUBE, getting their Amazon packages. playing their Cell phone games, and are bombarded every second of every day by constant information. Honestly, I'm surprised we don't all implode due to strokes all the time. The days of pouring over 45's ,and records are gone, except for collectors. Music, like most things, are primarily for the young, and they have the attention span of a gnat.

So what do we do? Have no idea. Today, I'll have a 19 year old girl and her Father as a client for my mentor business. They have been here two days, I'll do my best to help her with her songs, do my best to help her write something that sets her apart from others, introduce her to some people I know that might help her and try to advise them on how to best spend a little money without going broke. Yesterday we wrote a pretty interesting song she performed another song we wrote previously, last night and did very well, gathering a couple more potential co-writes, a few more fans, did an interview for a new podcast, and learned a bit on how to conduct herself for interviews and networking. All of these very things are part of their education and my suggestions of caution in all of this.

From there, they will have to find their way. My advice is always caution, and take with a grain of salt. Pretty level headed folks and I think they'll be fairly smart. She'll do her best and see where it takes her.

About all you can do in today's world.
MAB
MAB

I thought for a while that a Vinyl comeback might be able to change the tide. Cause I remember even as a kid, when somebody taped me an album, it never felt the same. It didnt feel like I owned it, cause it said TDK or Maxel on it, or if somebody was giving me the tape too, usually a cheaper one, like radio shak brand cassette.

Something about the ability to hold it in your hand, with the marketing and logos on the album, with the artwork, that made it seem like a real product, beyond the music. Vinyl did make a resurgence but not enough. Im surprised all the artists didnt get together and say, from this point on well only release vinyl just to see what happened.

But you have major superstars (Roger Daltry being one) who say that they dont make albums any more cause nobody will buy them.

I dont think albums were ever the main source of income its always been live. If you sell out a 100k capacity stadium, at 100 bucks per seat, that one show will earn more money than selling a million records.

I think that some time in the future, maybe not this year, or next, but that at some point live music is going to come roaring back.

Quarantining was not hard for most people, cause they stay home online anyway. But at some point the need to get out and see and hear live music will be back. And I still think you have a better chance or getting fans if they see you performing in a live setting, than them seeing you on youtube. Its more intimate.

The first time period, im thinking summer of 2022, will see an explosion of live music, and people going out to see it. WIll it last? Donno, but be ready to start giggin!

Vinyl did and does make a comeback, even the vinyl pressing plants here have expanded. The problem is that it is mostly just for audiofiles. And since albums started phasing out over 30 years ago, most people really don't have any relationship with vinyl in their lives at all. Audiophiles and us old farts like them because of the "holding them in the hand" thing we grew up with. Was the greatest thing about music. Putting it on the turntable, dropping the needle, and spending hours reading the liner notes. But anyone under 30 has very rarely had that experience, so it really doesn't make enough of a difference.

It did lead to a really funny experience and a cool song I wrote with a hit writer. I wrote "VINYL REVIVAL:" with my friends, Joie Scott (Colin Raye and Shania Twain hits) and Jim Peterik, (Eye of the Tiger, Hold On Loosley, The Search is Over, and Vehicle). It was basically about vinyl records and some younger kids discovering them. Was a really fun song to write and record (while I was doing a vocal, Stephen Tyler, from Aerosmith, popped in and gave me a thumbs up, lol!) and interestingly enough, a few months after we wrote and recorded the song, I was at a party WITH an old fashioned "HI FI" system (you know, the ones that used to take up have the room?) and a bunch of college aged kids were checking out the album collection and playing records. They freaked at how much fun it was but most had never even heard of vinyl!

But as a practical application, it is a hard sell. Albums take up a LOT of room, while most people are downsizing, and for an artist, aside from being fairly expensive, (not to mention the weight! Try carrying around 50-100 vinyl records to sell, especially flying on airplanes, and you see it's quite limited. Although it would be fun to have my songs on one.

I hope you are correct about live music coming back, although I have my doubts. Again, so many people stream live shows now, it is another roadblock to viabliity for artists and writers. I know right now in Nashville, we will probably have about half the venues we once had come back. Far too many have simply closed for good. And some, like the world famous Bluebird, are so small and intimate, they might not ever be able to reopen.
Only time will tell.

MAB

Don't worry all you old geezers. When the Internet is permanently taken down, we'll be back in business. Believe it or not, there are hackers working on that every day.

Cheer up, John

I just think people are getting bored with watching youtubers. Its not the same thing as going to a bar and seeing the artist really commuinicating.

My idea is that the small venue will soon, if not already be a refreshing new experience. Besides, the sheer numbers of people on youtube and online. Competing with millions of other musicians. Its like the book I read the Indie Band Survival guide. Doing things against the grain, thats my nature anyway...i never do what Im told!

I gurantee you that if you played a small bar, and you are really good, lets not omit that, you need to be really good. But also engaging and personal, and you manage to pull in 20 people at your show. I gurantee you, you will leave a lasting impression with those folks more than you would if they clicked on you at youtube. There's something still not real about the internet, not sure what it is. The spectacle is more important than the content.

There's 'still going to be a need for social gathering physical places. and people needing to run bars to make a living. Small business minded people who need to get back in the game.

I dont think it will change the world, but I do think a musician has a better shot at getting fans the traditional way. Anybody can click and give a like, that's not a fan.

Marc I'm afraid you have it sized up right. The music business is fading fast and the songwriter, which the business is based on, is going back to where he/she was 100 year ago. If you are a singer/songwriter you stand a chance of getting heard and even making a few dollars. There will always be a few big name artist that will make big money, but mostly through live performances. Music has more outlets now than ever but nobody wants to pay for it or pay as little as possible. This world without music would be a dismal place but it is pushed in the background that people don't notice it, but take it away all together and they know something is missing. There is too much of it, too many bad singers, bad musicians, bad writers, to the point that it is considered the norm. To the point a great song or singer seems out of place. Still there are people chomping at the bit to become a songwriter and asking for help to write a hit song. They don't even know how to start off a song and they have this idea they want to be rich and famous. They'd make more money mowing lawns for people. I'm still writing because I can't stop, it's like an addiction, I've slowed down but can't go cold turkey. Not to mention those that might want to record one of your songs but want to put their name on it as a co-writer, or change a word or two so they can claim being a co-writer.

The only difference now, is the songwriter, who used to say "ahh hell Im no performer or singer" "i'll let the pros do that" (coulda let the pros handle the songs too), but those same people are now TRYING to be the performer, the producer, the arranger, the engineer, the band. ANd record company. Because technology has allowed for it, but their first instinct was still probably true.

Besides everything we think we know about great songs, those rules and elements no longer exist, what is a great song? Nobody really knows, and probably never did. A great song is a song that many people like, thats about the size of it.

I see some unworldy musicians on youtube, they run circles around some of our legendary performers and songwriters.

Its always been about exposure. If the song gets exposure, it can be a hit. If a performer gets recognized or discovered, he or she will be the one who makes the millions and have a long career, if they dont, they will be on youtuber fending for themselves.

2Ok The Beatles, they were special, youre doing something right if you write over 200 songs, and every one great, yet still, as their career continued, being the Beatles, was their biggest asset. Id say its pretty easy to have a hit record, when you are the Beatles, as opposed to being The Anteaters. Money makes money, Fame makes Fame, Crowds attract crowds.

Fdemtrio,

The lines between the writer and artist, started blurring in the 60's with the Beatles. After they came on the scene, the pure songwriter, pretty much dissapeared in lieu of the writer as the artist. That has continued since then, and country has been the last format to fall. For better or worse it is what it is. WE are in the "everybody can and does do it now." and you are correct about the standards and expectations now are all out the window. We are mostly in the era of "celebrity and personality" instead of song. But that doesn't mean we need to write to the lowest common denominator. For our own efforts, we all need to attempt to write the best we can.

Just because it might limit our opportunities, it doesn't mean we don't try and stand up to the opportunities we do get.

MAB

Country has had pure songwriters, and these sites used to be loaded with nashville aspiring lyricists, and songwriters. I guess its still possible but then again, it was NEVER really easy, its just easier to find excuses today...

I toyed with idea of writing for other artists for a short time. It seems so easy. I had musician friends, who automatically assumed...hey im a good musician, i should have no problem writing songs...

and everybody likes the idea of writing something, and making money on it, sailing off into the sunset.

I didnt last long as a pure songwriter, cause I knew I wasnt good at it. Just making lyrics up because I THINK, somebody might think thats clever, or cute, or whatever. Thats not how you do it.

I also knew that I was good, at music, singing, writing music, but I wasnt great. Also knew id never be a real guitar hero.

I stuck with writing songs for myself, or myself to try and record. I found that collectively, melody, lyric, singing, playing, creating hooks, Id be pretty good.

I think technology has now made everybody think they are on equal footing with everybody else. EVen if that were true, it makes it that much more difficult.

But many songs have been cut since the Beatles, 70's 80 90, now I think everybody is trying to be the artist.

A problem that anything when it comes to the music industry, and in particularly in regard to Nashville, is the SOCIAL element of the business. The real players in the game all know each other, and have built HUGE RELATIONSHIPS for years before people are even allowed to participate. If you go back in time and businesses, you find the same thing. The Jolson's, Crosby's Sinatras, KNEW the COLE PORTERS, THE GERSWHINS, THE IRVING BERLINS. They all partied together, went to all the right clubs, golfed together, vacationed together. The Brill Building in New York was the center of the songwriting world and the direct relationships were the key to the business.

In the Motown era, writers like Marvin Gaye, Holland, Dozier, Holland, and Smokey Robinson, were also producers, and in some cases, artists themselves. LA, in the 70's, was the same. In the Laurel Canyon area, were Jackson Brown, the Eagles, Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Joni Mitchell, Linda Ronstadt, etc. all hung around each other, wrote together, and were close friends BEFORE any of them had deals.

Nashville was the same. In the 60's there was TOOTSIES, the downtown bar which at that time had a back room where Willie Nelson, Kris Kristofferson, Roger Miller, would all meet late at night and have "guitar pulls" (everybody playing, and you had to PULL the guitar out of someone else's hands in order to get your turn.)
I can't count all the late night parties, guitar pulls, golf outings, writers retreats, festivals, and other events that I've attended. And this is where the business would develop. You would hang out with the people in your "CLASS." (Just like high school and college, Freshman, Sophomore, Junior,Senior) And the circles of friends would expand and contract. This is where you would meet the people who in the next few years would go on to be come the hit makers. People like Garth Brooks would meet the writers he did demos for and later would become his own group of writers.
The first time I met Rascal Flatts, was in a crowded bedroom of a guy whose house I don't even remember. Maybe around 30 people crowded in listening to these tight harmonies around a piano and guitar in this room. As I think back I remember a half dozen writers in that room who would go on to get big Rascal Flatts hits.

I remember a place on Thursday Nights where a large group of us would gather at a wharehouse with a stage in the middle and have all night drinking and playing parties. In those groups were the people would become the Music Mafia, Big and Rich, Grethen Wilson, and others who would become huge stars. But the problem of that for "outside writers" (even those who might think they are on the inside) is that often these artists, were sewn up before most people even knew they existed.

As the 2000's began and money began to decline in songs, more and more companies went totally inside, with the pubilshers being the producers, the record labels the developme of artists, etc. And as time went on, less and less people who WEREN'T artists weren't signed. Now, it is more likely that the artists of tomorrow are first signed as writers and developed for a couple of years before their artist deals kick in. People like Chris Stapleton, Kacey Musgraves, and Maren Morris are more likely to have hits on other people before they even get a shot at their own record deals.

When American Idol and the Voice came along with the "360 Degree Deals" everyone were trying to be involved on the ground floor to get a percentage of the merchandise, touring and endorsements. And the advent of the "era of celebrity" forced songs to the background. Now, all types of arguments can be made as to the quality of that arrangement, but again, it is what it is. With the advent of the Internet, everyone is looking for the "latest viral sensation." Which brings us to where we are.

Are there any answers to any of this? Nope. But it is the way of the business.
MAB

Yup im sure nobody REALLY had any chance at all, but there was a time when they THOUGHT they did. Btw, the vast majority of these would be , Nashville writers are now on facebook, and dont even think about writing songs any more.

Youtube does in some sense level the playing field. You dont have to be anybody important, and you dont need contacts, you dont need to go anywhere specific and hang around, but the obvious flaw is that there are TOO MANY DAMN PEOPLE ON YOUTUBE! If it all stopped today, there would still be enough youtube videos to last several lifetimes.

Its all about hoping your little niche blows up. It happens, but not often. I've seen people with millions of hits, see above thread entitled... "crazy good musicians on youtube"

But the other daunting part is, even if you do manage to have a viral video or hit, your still just some schmuck on youtube.

I think youtube stars are viewed differently than stars in general. Easy come, easy go.

Not much you can do but do it for fun, and dont let it bankrupt you!

Ive heard of stories of songwriters needing a hit song just to recoup losses in money they had, as they were trying for a hit!