Hit Song Science

Oh, and to answer the question, the problem for the last 20 years has been that the music industry has followed formulas. That is why the quality of music went down. And if they use programs like this to structure songs they will get even more dismal and all sound alike. What made the Classic Rock era so great is that the musicians were in charge of the music, not the business executives.

Wes! At last I can get to disagree with you on a point!

Ever wonder WHAT happened to all those 60's musicians you mentioned??? There all out here doing jingles AND running the current-day music industry!

No kiddin'... :shock:

Cat

Oh, and to answer the question, the problem for the last 20 years has been that the music industry has followed formulas. That is why the quality of music went down. And if they use programs like this to structure songs they will get even more dismal and all sound alike. What made the Classic Rock era so great is that the musicians were in charge of the music, not the business executives.

All Classic Rock sounds the same to me. They use less overdrive than my amp's clean channel, have solos that take forever, with more silence in the solos than playing, with beats that don't want to hook me in and most of the recordings sound muffled. The latter is to be expected due to the age but even still. All in all, it adds to an era of music that thinks too much of itself.

What I've stated is just my opinion on the music only but it shows that the quality of music hasn't gone down.....you just don't like it. Unless someone can post some kind of proof that business types make decisions for artists (and prove it makes the music worse) and that this was not the case 40 years ago, I'm inclined to believe it comes down to a group of people liking the music they group up with and not the stuff out today.

Honestly, I don't like a lot of what comes out today. I heard a few Hannah Montana songs the other day and hated them. You know what's wrong with her music? Nothing. She can carry a tune, good voice, stays in tune and her band....same thing, they clearly know their instruments, they don't have trouble keeping time so I can't really say there is anything wrong with it other than I don't care for it. Sure there are other musicians like her with similar sounds with different keys, notes chords, melodies, tempo, lyrics...............sorry I forgot where I was going with that.

Ultimately, the question everyone should ask when shooting down someone's music is: is there some flaw with it, or do I just not like it?

*Likes the new Miley Cyrus song*
Grungesunset

All Classic Rock sounds the same to me. They use less overdrive than my amp's clean channel, have solos that take forever, with more silence in the solos than playing, with beats that don't want to hook me in and most of the recordings sound muffled. The latter is to be expected due to the age but even still. All in all, it adds to an era of music that thinks too much of itself.

Although I don't completely agree with this statement, the argument is sound (pun not indended). There seems to be a common theme with people, as they get older, there comes a point in time where they become unable to really appreciate anything new. This isn't directed at people on this forum necessarily, but my grandma hates my mom's music, and my mom doesn't like mine. My Grandma REALLY hates my music though ;)
What I've stated is just my opinion on the music only but it shows that the quality of music hasn't gone down.....you just don't like it. Unless someone can post some kind of proof that business types make decisions for artists (and prove it makes the music worse) and that this was not the case 40 years ago, I'm inclined to believe it comes down to a group of people liking the music they group up with and not the stuff out today.

This is bang on. The quality of music really hasn't gone down. I love a lot of classic rock, I love a lot of classical music, I love music from almost every era, but if you're attempting to put "new music" in a "rihanna, britney spears, soulja boy" box, then you're missing the point completely. Pop music in the 60's and 70's was just as formulaic and bubblegummy as it is now. There are a ton of new artists out there who are just as relevant and groundbreaking as there were 40 years ago, there may actually be a lot more now since the advent of the Internet and the downfall of music labels.

On a separate note, I don't believe all good music gets out. Some of the best music doesn't. Speaking from my perspective, I like a lot of prog stuff. Lots of subgenres and bands from every decade we're talking about here. One major thing about prog is that the beauty of the music doesn't hit you the first spin around. A lot of times you're going to need to listen to an album a couple of times before the intricacies really shine, and you "hear" it. This type of music turns a lot of people off because they don't immediately recognize it as being "good" since it's so different. Most prog bands save a very few, have very little commercial success (if any).

I can recogonize good, well written and performed music in genres and forms to which I just cannot stand to listen. They drive me crazy, yet I can acknowledge the art and innovation -- just don't make me listen again. OTOH, I have heard ground breaking, but somewhat annoying music that also doesn't quite resonate, but there's something about it that says "listen to me more." And damn if I don't get rewired to enjoy that new music. My experience tells me we may very well be "designed" to find comfort in what we know and find familiar -- maybe because it is safe and won't "hurt." And that also means, we can become inured to new aural experiences that do not immediately seem "musical" to us, but do get our attention and upon repetition (if we allow it) become imprinted upon our neural nets, and eventually do seem musical. Same is true of scales, tunings, rhythms ...

And I also can look at some of the stuff I like and realize that it is musically boorish or trite and marginally performed, yet I still like it. Go figure.

Ever wonder WHAT happened to all those 60's musicians you mentioned?

Actually, most of them are still making music and touring!

McCartney's got a new album out
The Stones always seem to be on the road
The Who have toured this year
Dylan plays over 100 gigs a year still
John Fogerty's another one who seems to be permanently on the road
Status Quo are currently touring (thank you for your concern, and yes, I HAVE got tickets!)
Santana's touring regularly

And if you name any second-division (ie not quite up there with the big boys, but had a few hits and still get played on the oldies stations) band from the 60's, I'll bet you most of them are doing the cabaret circuit....

It can't be just for the money - they're all rich enough to retire. So what keeps driving them on? Could it possibly be that they still enjoy the music? Still enjoy playing live?

:D :D :D

Vic

Hey, Gnease...what you say is germane to the contradictions that PLAGUE lots of us. There certainly IS a spot "way in the back of yer head, somewhere" that rails at the fact that you just cannot write or play the way you want and still get paid for it. But, then, there is that mortgage to think of tucked into that very same spot. :?

But look at the whole mess of stuff that's commercial...and GOOD. Ever REALLY listen to Flatt&Scruggs on "The Beverly Hillbillies"??? I mean...GREAT stuff. Sure, the whole BH show is totally nuts...(Jethro STILL cracks me up!)...but in the initial contrivance some producer MUST have said "We need a catchy theme played by good bluegrass/country musicians."

Hey! Here's something that'll sound familiar for folks used to studio work: "Anderson Cooper 360" on CNN. All's it is...is a drummer "drumming for time" as the board gets set up for levels and EQs...then a couple of other fellas jump in. NICE JAM!!!

But since I read what Ms Sunset wrote (below) I gotta say that she's come up with a salient point...one we all pretty much overlooked (good insight, Gal!):
The hit or miss part of it will come from something a computer can't take into account: the politics. If it were to say predict the next Britney Spears song will be a smash it, it wouldn't be taking into account that most of us have had our fill of her from her divorce, custody battles and etc. If we didn't love an artist for saving the rain forest or hate them for tearing up a picture of the pope, I believe a hit could be predicted with some degree of accuracy.

There's a lot to "making" a hit besides the music. Hey! Speaking of Brittney...her see-through leotard bit on one of her CD covers was AWESOME! I mean, even Boy George would get somethin' outta THAT shot! :lol: Still...GrungeSunset's not far off the mark with that insight and there's marketing execs pacing more than a few floors trying to come up with adjuncts to the music they are trying to onsell to whomever they think is their target market.

This is a tough business...and most musicians that start out with "I won't commercialise my music" relent and become satisfied with one or two "fillers" on the CD that the A&R Dept lets them "keep". But at a MINIMUM of $100,000 a month in recompense...eh...who cares??? :wink:

Cat

But look at the whole mess of stuff that's commercial...and GOOD. Ever REALLY listen to Flatt&Scruggs on "The Beverly Hillbillies"??? I mean...GREAT stuff. Sure, the whole BH show is totally nuts...(Jethro STILL cracks me up!)...but in the initial contrivance some producer MUST have said "We need a catchy theme played by good bluegrass/country musicians."

You bring up a valid point. I think a lot of people jump to the conclusion that commercial is bad and not commercial is good. I know a lot of music that would be labelled commercial that is awesome and some non-commercial stuff that sounds worse than Smelly Cat.

I had another thought as well. In order for the whole business types making music commercial to be true, you'd have to assume these business types know music well enough to do so, which they probably don't. This is where a producer comes in. They have the musical knowledge to make changes and do the mix and enough knowledge to know what sound will sell. A lot of them are musicians themselves and will more than likely respect the artist's vision.

My point of view is: if I'm fortunate enough to have a record deal then I am making music for a living and living my dream. If my producer has a few suggestions I would respect their input like any other member of the band. If I didn't trust their judgement, I would have produced the album myself. Honestly, I don't think sticking to your guns musically gets you very far. You may get a warm feeling inside for keeping your integrity but no one wants to listen to music so "creative" that is just weird and no one wants to sign an artist that won't compromise.

It's funny you mentioned the Beverly Hillbillies. It makes me think of Alexz Johnson, lead actress in the canadian drama series Instant Star. She also writes and performs all the songs for the show. Most of the songs are written to fit the show's script but sound awesome. Like this one, which was written based on her character's dad who is having an affair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIUxEuB2FXg

Yeah, look up the top money making bands, you will be amazed, 90% of them are Classic Rock bands. Bands like the Rolling Stones, Eagles, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, and on and on are still playing. Recently here in Connecticut, Billy Joel sold out 9 straight shows. These guys are drawing bigger crowds than the modern bands.

You just don't get it, there is a reason for this. THE MUSIC IS BETTER. It's not just the old geezers going to these shows, there are crowds of young people who go to these shows, and many admit that the music is better.

Say what you will, money talks and you-know-what walks.

And I am not hung-up on "my era" of music. I enjoy all sorts of music. I am a big fan of the crooners like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. I like Mozart and Beethoven. I hate Rap.

Look, I tune into all sorts of stations, I go to online sites and listen to lots of music. I hear some good stuff, sometimes some great stuff. But generally it is not in the same league. It is all the same. That is the problem today, the record companies look for groups that sound like the last successful group. They are all copies of each other. If you think Tom Petty sounds like Billy Joel, then you aren't listening.

And saying that there is too much silence between the notes is hilarious. Real musicians know that the rests and pauses are just as important as the notes, sometimes more important. You must like those guys who play a million notes every solo. How boring. :roll:

You won't believe this, but 90% of your modern groups are just copying ol Frank Black and The Pixies. Play a verse quiet, then crank the distortion and scream. Of course, when Frank did it it was original. Listen for yourself, and see if this is not the formula most groups follow today. Kurt Cobain was honest enough to admit it. Are you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcn0f5s-aas

Haha Wes, I think we might get into it again old buddy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_albums_in_the_United_States

Here they have Shania Twain and Garth Brooks albums going 20-30x platinum
Whitney Houston, Hootie and the Blowfish, Bee Gees, going 15-19x platinum
Meat Loaf, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, Creed etc etc going 10-14x platinum

The point I'm making is that the "top money making bands" are not necessarily good by ANY stretch of the imagination, and how many records you sell or tickets you sell to your show is almost completely unrelated to how "good" your music is. Formulaic pop records sell tons of albums too.

Using the phrase "the music is better" is such a subjective statement. Because you've met young people at CLASSIC ROCK concerts who like CLASSIC ROCK better than new music, then drawing the conclusion that everyone thinks it's better is tantamount to visiting comic-con and assuming everyone likes to dress up like Worf from Star Trek.

I know your distaste for guitar virtuosos, and again, that's fine, but there are some of us who DO hear the music in a 64th note run of some obscure diminished scale over distorted rhythm guitar. Nobody thinks Tom Petty sounds like Billy Joel, but Kansas sure sounds a lot like Lynyrd Skynyrd, and early beatles sure sounds a lot like the beach boys. Now if you think that Radiohead sounds like Sublime, YOU aren't listening ;)

If you listen to the mainstream radio, it's all pop basically, which is catchy, formulaic and repetitive. There are a lot of bands that you've never heard of that are as good as any classic rock band. Do you see what I mean about age though? You like classic rock and anything that age or OLDER, but hardly anything newer. Most people my grandma's age love swing, big band, sinatra etc, but hate anything newer.. All the stuff you call classic rock. It's a cycle.

Also, just because some bands are heavily influenced by older bands doesn't make them worse. Yeah some bands have quiet verses and loud choruses (Linkin Park comes to mind), a lot of great classic rock bands were heavily influenced by earlier artists, almost to the point of complete ripoff, just like new bands...

Led Zeppelin anyone?

Basically every blues musician is a ripoff artist, but that doesn't make the blues any less great.

Jeffster1

You got me all wrong. I don't hate shredders, I actually listen to quite a few and go to lessons on YouTube etc... I truly appreciate their skill and musicianship, and I would be a total liar if I said I did not wish I could play that well. I have written a few times how I have been studying Speed Mechanics by Troy Stentina for several years. I actually purchased this book twice because I loaned it to a friend who never returned it. I really liked the lessons and I still study them. And truthfully, it has helped my playing a lot. I can pick MUCH faster (still no shredder by any means) than I used to, and I find that the control you learn even helps you play better rhythm guitar. So I totally respect their ability.

And I was not really talking about speed Metal anyway. I am talking more about what is today's mainstream Rock. I listen to stations playing current Rock quite often. You can say that they only play junk, whatever. These are the major stations in my area, so this is what the kids are listening to as well. And it all sounds so similar. Everybody sings that style that Eddie Vedder started in the early 90's. It is still basically the style that started with Nirvana (who copied The Pixies). You start quiet and then hit the distortion and scream on the choruses. Here is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPQR-OsH0RQ

I'm not putting that down, I was and am a huge fan of Nirvana. I think Kurt Cobain was one of the greatest Rock singers ever. And when Nirvana came out it was very different, even though they were really copying the style of The Pixies. Compare that Nirvana song with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxytSH_piRQ

quiet, LOUD, quiet, LOUD, quiet, LOUD.... that is the formula. And it works. It is great.

But everybody sounds like that now, or they tune down super low like Korn (which I also liked).

Now here is a current hit: LOUD, quiet, LOUD, quiet, LOUD, quiet. Actually these guys sound EXACTLY like Puddle of Mudd.

http://www.mp3free4all.com/theory_of_a_deadman-bad_girlfriend-youtube_music_video.html

And everybody said they copied Nirvana, which they did.

Say what you will, groups did not sound so similar back in the 60s and 70s.

And you are right about LInkin Park, I heard one of their new hits today, can't remember the name, but I sure did recognize this worn out copied formula. :roll:

Oh, and to add to some other of your comments, I don't think the musicians are worse today, I think they are more highly skilled and educated than the musicians of the 60's and 70's. I think the music was better then, not the musicians. Yes, even then music had some similarities, they were using the best gear of the day which pales by today's sounds. So you hear similar sounds because it was limited. It's like the 50s, everybody had that super clean Fender tone with tons of reverb and tremelo. But that was all they had to work with. So the tones are different.

Now, if you take the 50's you hear that famous I, mVi, IV, V progression a thousand times. Everybody was using that progression. But the 60's and 70's were very different, everybody was going in a different direction all at the same time. The Beatles didn't sound like the Rolling Stones, who didn't sound like the Who, who didn't sound like Black Sabbath, who didn't sound like Led Zeppelin. The distinctions were clear. That is not the case today whatsoever.

And listen to this modern hit:

http://www.mp3free4all.com/shinedown-devour.html

Sheesh, is that a Metallica copy or what? The guy sings just like James Hetfield (well not completely). Man, back in the 70s the worse thing you could do was sound like another group. Of course, the guy for Godsmack is far worse. Or should I growl a-wors-a!

It's no use arguing, the ears don't lie.

Show me some groups that sounded so similar, they are all on YouTube.

I thought Kansas and Lynyrd Skynyrd was a good comparison. Although I like both bands, and I probably like Kansas a bit better, they're basically carbon copies of each other. There are also about a billion bands that sound like the mamas and the poppas, or blue oyster cult.

You wanna hear another Metallica ripoff? Check this one out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puoe26BWeQ4
Wait for the chorus....

I was thinking of picking up speed mechanics. You'd recommend it then?

On a side note, watch these two videos, I'm sure you'll die laughing... I did. Try to ignore the horrible tone-deaf singer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNRhzX6gw8

And this one will absolutely kill you: http://linkinparksoundsthesame.ytmnd.com/

Hey! THANKS Ms Sunset...GREAT thread going on here...

Thinking about it...I gotsta side with Wes when it comes to his insight about "good music will always be good". A good piece of music will always sell. Besides...we all "stand on someone's shoulders" but exactly WHOSE shoulders??? It ain't the fly-by-nighters, the one hit wonders. It's the truly gifted that we can only hope to learn something from. This is why I...and an army of others...can't abide by rap.

But, Jeffster...c'mon, "carbon copies"??? Yer serious??? :? PLEASE say you don't mean it!

But, then, on further thought...you COULD be on to something. Maybe the same production crew can be "blamed" for what you perceive as "sameness" in some respects? You know, like Spector's "wall of sound" or Gordy's Motown sound. It's bleedin' obvious that I'm reminded of ELO when I hear The Travelling Wilburies.

Figuring out "hit song science" is one tough nut to crack...or they'd be zillions of 'em out there.

So...to put a point to Ms Sunset's argument...IF there's some software out there that would guarantee a hit...hey...GIMME!

Cat

8) This is where a producer comes in. They have the musical knowledge to make changes and do the mix and enough knowledge to know what sound will sell. A lot of them are musicians themselves and will more than likely respect the artist's vision.
My point of view is: if I'm fortunate enough to have a record deal then I am making music for a living and living my dream. If my producer has a few suggestions I would respect their input like any other member of the band. If I didn't trust their judgement, I would have produced the album myself. Honestly, I don't think sticking to your guns musically gets you very far. You may get a warm feeling inside for keeping your integrity but no one wants to listen to music so "creative" that is just weird and no one wants to sign an artist that won't compromise.

Just my two cents based on my current experiences with my producer: I don't have a label so I pay for the man myself, so clearly I wouldn't do that if I wouldn't trust him. He's a skilled producer and he absolutely respects my vision. But the problem is making him 'get' my vision. I can say 'make it sound like [random band]' and he'll go to work, but when you have your own sound in mind you have to communicate that somehow. And trust me, when you can't find a better way to explain then saying it should not be so bluesih and glassy but more reddish/brown and diffuse, things get frustrating. As far as I can see most producers, espescially the big ones, make real mistakes. The real problem is communication, same as with a movie: if the scriptwriter, producer and editor don't share a vision you're in trouble, no matter how individually skilled each of them is.
Yeah, look up the top money making bands, you will be amazed, 90% of them are Classic Rock bands. Bands like the Rolling Stones, Eagles, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, and on and on are still playing. Recently here in Connecticut, Billy Joel sold out 9 straight shows. These guys are drawing bigger crowds than the modern bands.

You just don't get it, there is a reason for this. THE MUSIC IS BETTER. It's not just the old geezers going to these shows, there are crowds of young people who go to these shows, and many admit that the music is better.

Say what you will, money talks and you-know-what walks.

Sorry Wes, I disagree. Modern acts easily keep up with those older acts. Radiohead sold out in ten minutes over here, if Coldplay whispers they'll be touring soon masses will drop in front of the box office camping for tickets. Those rappers you hate so much play in sold out arenas all over the world. With six billion people on this world there is enough room for a lot of acts to reach the absolute top.

Up until the early 20th century music was 'local': you knew the tunes the people in your village played, and if you traveled to another village you might pick up a new tune. With the development of production technology the newfound 'music industry' came in a position that it was able to decide who got recorded and who didn't. With each decade labels merged, technology improved and fewer and fewer labels got more and more power. Labels started producing music they assumed would sell as soon as they could (Tin Pan Alley , blackface :P ) and the sixties were no difference. Remember the monkeys and such clones? The unique thing about that era was that for some reason the labels took a lot of crap from the musicians: spending a year with the band on some remote farm recording music and smoking pot was no problem to some managers back then. It's this aspect that I love most, the weird freeform experimental 'wow an electric guitar, lets see what we can do with that!' mindset. The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd and all such laid the foundation of the modern music I love. After that period the suits got themselves together and rock stars nowadays are expected to show up on time, sober, and wash their hands after taking a leak. In that sense I agree with you that somewhere something went wrong.

But there's another development, too. With all the technologies being discovered in the past few decades everyone can afford his own little Electric Ladyland studio on a budget. You won't get the hifi squeky-clean production quality of high-class studios but you get all the freedom a musician could ever want. While the musical variety of 'big label' productions isn't that exciting the 'underground' music has exploded with the internet. Sites like Pandora (for the Americans) and LastFM (for the Europeans) are like a custom radio. It'll keep track of your taste and it'll start feeding you new music. With some time you'll start to discover great but small bands, often thousand miles away from you. A girlfriend of mine recently got a friendly personal note from a small Icelandish band inviting her to the show they did in our town. When's the last time Keith or Mick asked you to come along?

I think this is the future of music, for now. More and more bands will be able to get an audience but there'll be less and less superstar bands everyone likes. But face it: these days some deathcore fanatic and me can listen to the same 'radio' at the same time, both hear music we love, interact on a personal level with those bands and repeatedly discover new gems. That's not so bad, is it? 8)
The Beatles didn't sound like the Rolling Stones, who didn't sound like the Who, who didn't sound like Black Sabbath, who didn't sound like Led Zeppelin. The distinctions were clear. That is not the case today whatsoever.

Okay, let me show you some. These are all recent songs in the same genre 'moden rock'.

Radiohead, my #1 band
Coldplay
MUSE

And that's just one genre. When you factor in all the urban genres (hiphop, R&B), all the electronical stuff (dance, trance, dub, glitch etc), the new singer/songwriters, pop musicians and there's plenty of stuff happening. Can't say I like all of it, or most of it, but there's enough great stuff to keep me busy.

And listen to this modern hit:

http://www.mp3free4all.com/shinedown-devour.html

Sheesh, is that a Metallica copy or what? The guy sings just like James Hetfield (well not completely). Man, back in the 70s the worse thing you could do was sound like another group. Of course, the guy for Godsmack is far worse. Or should I growl a-wors-a!

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNf2ibB216Y

They are capable of a wide range of sounds. Can't say if it's good because that's all opinion but it's definitely not Metallica.

My biggest problem with classic rock bands is they don't sound a lot like each other but sound too much like themselves. Stevie Ray Vaughan's concerts sound like one continuous song and I still can't for the life of me tell one Led Zeppelin song from another. I just know Robert Plants voice (which I personally can't stand the sound of).
You just don't get it, there is a reason for this. THE MUSIC IS BETTER. It's not just the old geezers going to these shows, there are crowds of young people who go to these shows, and many admit that the music is better.

No it's not better. It's just your opinion and you believe that since a lot of people share your opinion that makes it correct.