Hit Song Science

Say what you want, here is the top 20 highest grossing bands for the year 2007 from Pollster


1. the Police ($133.2M)
2. Kenny Chesney ($71.1M)
3. Justin Timberlake ($70.6M)
4. Celine Dion ($65.3M)
5. Van Halen ($56.5M)
6. Tim McGraw & Faith Hill ($52.3M)
7. Rod Stewart ($49M)
8. Genesis ($47.6M)
9. Josh Groban ($43M)
10. Rascal Flatts ($41.5M)
11. Bon Jovi ($41.4M)
12. Dave Matthews Band ($41.1M)
13. Billy Joel ($39.1M)
14. Roger Waters ($38.3M)
15. Bruce Springsteen ($38.2M)
16. Hannah Montana ($36M)
17. Elton John ($35.7M)
18. Jimmy Buffett ($35.6M)
19. Barry Manilow ($34.8M)
20. Toby Keith ($34.3M)

See any of your modern bands there??

And if you saw a list of the top 100 grossing bands you would see Classic Rock bands dominating by a ratio of probably 5 to 1. Say whatever you want, people are not forced to go to concerts, they spend their money to go see music they enjoy.

Arjen, I actually like Radiohead, they have a pretty original sound, even though that song you posted was still the quiet, LOUD formula started back in the late 80s by the Pixies. I have heard Coldplay and realize they are hugely poplular, but they don't do anything for me.

I am not saying the musicians today aren't good. I am saying the music industry forces all of these bands to play a very similar style of music. It pertains to this thread because the music industry already follows a formula. When a band with a certain sound becomes popular, they purposely try to duplicate it over and over again. This is why the Classic Rock bands were better, because the actual musicians were in charge of the industry then and tried to be as different from each other as possible. There was more creativity.

And saying a band sounds like itself is silly, the Beatles undeniably played the widest variety of styles of any Rock group ever, but they still sounded like the Beatles. All bands sound like themselves.

Of course, you are used to bands that all sound the same. :D

And you can call me an opinionated old geezer, I have the cold-hard facts on my side. You guys are so opinionated you are in denial. :wink:

Once again, just because more people share your musical tastes doesn't mean your tastes are better than everyone elses.

Although I wasn't around in the 60's I don't remember Justin Timberlake and Hannah Montana being popular back then.

Boy Grunge, I would like to see you walk into one of these music companies applying for a job and tell them that. :roll:

You are the one who thinks only your opinion is important. The vast majority is on my side.

Whether you like it or not, you will be judged by others your entire life. This is the way the system works, so you better get used to it. When you hold a job, it doesn't matter how great you think you are, if your boss disagrees you are gonna get the boot. When you get married, you may think you are the best, but if your wife thinks otherwise you are in big trouble. And when it comes to bands, you better bring people in the door, that is what matters, not your self-opinion of yourself or what you think is "good" music.

Arjen, I actually like Radiohead, they have a pretty original sound, even though that song you posted was still the quiet, LOUD formula started back in the late 80s by the Pixies.

Sorry Wes, that 'formula' was not started by the Pixies or any other rockband, it's one of the oldest and most known 'formula' in the classical world, dating back way before Bach. As for your profit margins: ofcourse you wont find Radiohead there, they don't release their financial records since going independant. Financial experts assume Radiohead made 5 million pounds (9 million dollars or something) with the In Rainbows download. That means the actual retail products isn't facoted it, and neither is the world tour that is ofcourse the biggest source of income.

By the by, your stats are off. If you have a non-filtered all-income counted list you're missing out a few. Jay-Z earned a little over 200 million USD in 2006, and depending on the Coca Cola investment 50C can walk out with his share of the offered 4.2 billion USD, netting him about 100 million USD. Those two rappers earned more together then your entire top5. And remember your list names 'bands', D12 as a collective would earn way over a 100 million USD, too. Hows' that for cold-hard facts? :wink:

Finally, there is no vast majority here. With the tens of billions going around in the industry there is not a single 'vast majority' on any side.
I am not saying the musicians today aren't good. I am saying the music industry forces all of these bands to play a very similar style of music. It pertains to this thread because the music industry already follows a formula. When a band with a certain sound becomes popular, they purposely try to duplicate it over and over again. This is why the Classic Rock bands were better, because the actual musicians were in charge of the industry then and tried to be as different from each other as possible. There was more creativity.

How the music industry works has absolutely nothing to do with how people outside the industry work. And face it, the vast majority of musicians on the world are not signed to major labels, so how 'creative' a generation is has practically nothing to do with major label policies. The problem here is not the lack of creativity, it''s how to find that creativity.
And finally: whatever floats your boat. I'm off to enjoy some modern tunes and if you'll get half as much fun out of your music as I get out of mine we'll both have a good time. 8)

How the music industry works has absolutely nothing to do with how people outside the industry work. And face it, the vast majority of musicians on the world are not signed to major labels, so how 'creative' a generation is has practically nothing to do with major label policies. The problem here is not the lack of creativity, it''s how to find that creativity.
And finally: whatever floats your boat. I'm off to enjoy some modern tunes and if you'll get half as much fun out of your music as I get out of mine we'll both have a good time.

Arjen, I simply do not agree with you here. The music industry has everything to do with creativity. As I wrote earlier, what was very different about the late 60's and early 70s is that bands were allowed to go in the studio and do anything they wanted. So you heard a wide variety of styles. This encouraged creativity. Today the bands are controlled by the labels. First, they primarily pick bands according to a formula or sound they think will sell. But also, the bands are made to conform to this formula, they are not allowed to be creative. You guys have actually said this about the modern bands on the major radio networks, and it is true.

Now of course, like you said, today everybody can be their own label. There are countless sites where you can post your music. The problem with this is there is too much music for anyone person to possibly listen to. And I made a comparison to Major League Baseball here in the States. Many years ago there were only about 20 teams, so to make the Major Leagues you had to be an outstanding player. Today, with double or triple the teams, you have to fill out the teams with inferior players simply because you need more. And this is the trouble with these sites. Yes, there are thousands of bands out there, some of them great. But it is difficult for a band to really get out there and be popular world-wide like the Rolling Stones for instance. They are simply lost in the crowd.

You guys act like I am personally insulting modern music. In a way I am, but not the musicians and bands. There are great musicians and bands out there, but the vast majorities are copies of copies.

And of course the Pixies were not the first musicians to use dynamics. But they made the very quiet verse, super loud distorted chorus famous in ROCK music.

Actually, Frank Black is too creative to copy anybody. If you listen to Gouge Away, he plays the chorus quiet, but the verses LOUD, exactly the opposite of everybody else. Frank is way ahead of the others. :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8D8z-rzsG0&feature=related

Now of course, like you said, today everybody can be their own label. There are countless sites where you can post your music. The problem with this is there is too much music for anyone person to possibly listen to. And I made a comparison to Major League Baseball here in the States. Many years ago there were only about 20 teams, so to make the Major Leagues you had to be an outstanding player. Today, with double or triple the teams, you have to fill out the teams with inferior players simply because you need more. And this is the trouble with these sites. Yes, there are thousands of bands out there, some of them great. But it is difficult for a band to really get out there and be popular world-wide like the Rolling Stones for instance. They are simply lost in the crowd.

The problem is that, unlike with baseball, music is more subjective. Suppose we'd have a 'music league' with the 'twenty best bands'. With blues, country, pop, hardrock, rock n roll, metal, hiphop, R&B, alternative rock, electronica, dance, easy listening, reggae, soul, jazz, triphop, psychedelica etc etc there are just too many good bands to pick, someone's favourite band might be crap to me. Music always expend: old genres will remain to exist one way or the others and new ones are always being pioneered. Right now there is just a huge incredible massive pile of extremely diverse music available. I think we both agree that there is no problem with the creativity of bands, but there is problem with the way labels work. So either those 'gatekeepers' need to change ro we need a new way to distribute music.

You can handle this three ways, IMHO:

1) The SoundClick way: filter nothing. As free as can be but as you say it's just not worth the time if you're looking for new music. Just too much crap.
2) An official 'gatekeeper': Filter extremely much, like the labels do. Pick two or three distinct flavors for three different markets (for teenagers: urban, pop, alternative) and keep the rest out. As you say it results in a very sterile, boring and bland experience. If you're exactly in the target audience you're in luck otherwise you're screwed.
3) A user-filtered system, like those being pioneered by LastFM and (I guess) Pandora.It's still in it's infancy but I think it is the best solution: every act can dump their music there so there's total freedom. Listeners create their own account which you 'set up' initially. You let the program now if you like a certain song or not and slowly it'll start to understand your taste. It'll then play other tracks that people who 'vote' like you liked. In other words: it will give you the tracks that the classic rock fans think are best, some kid will get the hottest underground rap and I get to sit back and get all kinds of samplepop that has been rated highly by other listeners. it allows all music to be heared, filters out the crap in the best way: by using your taste as the definition of good and bad.

Interesting list of highest grossing bands there - I've seen exactly one of them. That was Rod Stewart, and that was way back in '74 when he was still with the Faces. I wouldn't go to watch him now, with his current band, playing the music he plays nowadays. Of the rest, there are two, three at the most I'd pay money to see. Some of them I've never heard of; some of them I've heard of, but never heard anything by them.

Wes, I've got to point out one thing - of course, 99% of the people on this site are going to agree with you. It's a guitar site, first and foremost - and a lot of the people here are roughly the same age as you and I. GrungeSunset and Ignar are considerably younger, have been exposed to a lot of newer music - probably more than you and I. Certainly so in my case - I just don't bother listening to anything new. Yes, I've been exposed to Coldplay - I consider them bland and soulless. Radiohead, I can take them in small doses. There are good new bands about, they don't all sound the same - but I do agree with you about the variety of music in the late 60's/early 70's.

But even then, for every classic rock record there was a bland slice of MOR pap....for every Beatles and Rolling Stones, there was an Engelbert Humperdinck or Cilla Black - for every T Rex or Bowie, there was an Osmonds or David Cassidy - for Led Zep and Deep Purple, there was a Gilbert O Sullivan or Gary Glitter. There's always been good music - and there's always been that bland, soulless MOR pop, best exemplified these days by boybands like Boyzone or westlife, or manufactured "bands" like Hearsay and Girls Aloud. These bands are, or were, huge - sell out tours, hit after hit after hit, and yet most of us would consider their music utter pap.

There will always be bands who have their own sound, or are the acknowledged leaders of a certain genre - RHCP, Metallica, Oasis....but on the debit side, the more bands like these are succesful, the more other bands will try and imitate them, and the more producers will try and make the band they're working with try and sound like like of the leading bands.

There'll always be good music about, if you can be bothered looking for it - but there'll always be bland, mindless, soulless pop about as well - and it'll sell.

:D :D :D

Vic

Well Vic, I don't know why everybody keeps bringing up the fact that there were manufactured bands back in the 60s and 70s, just as there are bands like that today. You have that young teenage market 12-15 years old that will always go for this stuff, and there is always someone who will put it out there for them. And there are lots of markets, there is music for businesses "elevator music" if you will, that businesses play. This is usually softer instrumental music.

What does that have to do with this thread?? I am talking about the "real" music for lack of a better name, the music aimed at the 18-30 year old. When you listen to the bands today, they sound almost all alike. Yes, there are bands like Radiohead that are different, but this is the exception, not the rule. But back in the 60s and 70s almost all of the bands sounded very different from each other. I can't believe someone said Kansas sounded like Lynyrd Skynyrd, they sound nothing alike. As I mentioned before, CCR doesn't sound anything like Steely Dan, and you can't really mention a band that sounds like either of these. Grand Funk Railroad doesn't sound like the Grateful Dead. It is silly to have to even say this, anybody can hear the difference.

Being jetlagged does have its compensations. I get to drop in when your part of the planet is awake!

Wes! I share your points, however, when we were young uns the music industry was left to "make good music" and then the market gave longevity to these successful acts. This was (in my opinion) a "corporate roll of the dice" for the monied backers. SADLY...those days are gone. (Hey? Do you think The Stones would "make it" today???) But we're compensated (partially) by AT LEAST being able to STILL hear these classics, today.

"Hit song science" DOES exist in many ways. The "science" is in coming up with a commercial success as opposed to something we old farts would accept. Again, SAD...but so is having to pay to see The Mets play!

This subject is rather poignant for me. I'm wrapping a project around my teenage sons and some of their friends. I'm also hunting for a teeny bopper that "is Brittany ten years ago" to front the band. Although we are "ghosting" the music...we are forced to "lay back" so the kids can copy the work when playing live. The lyrics are also germane to the target market. But I'm not making any bones about it...this CERTAINLY is a CONTRIVED set of circumstances...and seeing this particular thread posted reinforces the fact that "it ain't what I like" that really counts.

Personally...I find it wayyyyyy easier to "play what I feel/play what I like"...and so forcing the commercialisation is a tough nut, to be sure. My background in production and in commercial music (I HOPE!) is gonna help me!!!

My hoped-for result is ALSO commercial. I want my boys to have universtity degrees, a house, transportation and a fledgling career...WITHOUT DEBT...as they start out in life. Wishful thinking??? Sure is!

Cat

The 1960s was a decade, that brought by far the greatest change in British music of any decade bar none. The 1950s ended with the early days of RocknRoll, with the likes of Bill Hailey and the Comets and a certain Elvis Presley. The charts, however were still full of people like Frank Sinatra, Emile Ford, Stella Stevens etc. - basically big band music that had come out of the Forties.
The 60s came in with people like the Everly Brothers, Cliff Richard & the Shadow, Connie Francis, Elvis Presley, Eddie Cochran, Johnny Kidd & the Pirates and Duane Eddy.

We left the 60s with Frank Sinatra, Bobbie Gentry, Fleetwood Mac, Elvis Presley (still!), Marvin Gaye, The Archies, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Peter Sarstedt, Stevie Wonder, Booker T. and The M.G.s, The Bee Gees, The Rolling Stones, The Who, Rick Mayall, Led Zep, The Beatles, Marmalade, Herman's Hermits, The Hollies, Jethro Tull, The Beach Boys, Small Faces, T-Rex, Mamas & Papas, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton (in all his guises), the Animals, etc., etc.,etc.

There was a variety of music styles, that has not been seen before or since. The 70s was a decade of "bedding down", the great experiment of 60s music was being shepherded into "genres" and music moghuls were beginning to call the shots.

The 1960s saw the very first manufactured band - the Monkees. Until then, bands were taken from the pub and club circuit. They were groups, who had been together for, very often, several years, before being "discovered". Today, it is more the norm than the exception to manufacture groups - they are the Kleenex of the music world. Use 'em and throw 'em.

You also have to remember that the 60s brought about huge cultural change (for good or bad) and the music reflected that.
I know that it's going to be taken as on old fart remembering his youth, but I am firmly of the opinion that, to understand the 60s, you had to have lived it.

Grey...

Comin' up on #58. They've said for millennia that you get "wise" as 50. True...because by then you've made ALL the mistakes yer gonna make...pretty much.

After a while, I (and you and...etc) get to sounding like our own fathers did in 1969. Lucky for me...even then...my dad was cool!

So what! Geez, fellas: ain't it been one heck of a ride since then!

:mrgreen:

Cat

And finally: whatever floats your boat. I'm off to enjoy some modern tunes and if you'll get half as much fun out of your music as I get out of mine we'll both have a good time.

Amen to that. In the end it's all down to what the individual perceives as "good" - like GrungeSunset says, good is a point of view. What I like isn't necessarily going to be what everyone else likes, and vice versa.

I don't listen to much new music - like I've said, the radio station I listen to is exclusively classic rock. OK, I sometimes feel I'm missing out on some good new bands - but then again, I'd never even heard of SRV until I joined GN. I share GSunset's view of him, however - to me, everything he does sounds the same. But you could say that about Chuck Berry, for instance - how many times did he recycle the same riffs! (Example - No Particular Place To Go/School Days.)

Sometimes I feel I'm turning into my dad - he hated the Beatles, Stones etc. He used to say, "the music of today's not like when I was young - it all sounds the same." The difference is, he'd never heard music like the Beatles or the Stones before - these days, those of us of a certain age feel like we HAVE heard it all before, and there's nothing new under the sun - especially in the rock genre. Maybe there is in other genres, like rap and hip-hop - but I don't like those genres to begin with, so what's the point of even listening?

So if you want to listen to modern music, that's fine by me - I'll keep on listening to the oldies. Just a quick look at the CDs I have close to hand....AC/DC, Beach Boys, Beatles, Chuck Berry, CCR, Blondie, Bowie, Johnny Cash, Dylan, Doors, Eagles, John Fogerty, Four Seasons & Frankie Valli, George Harrison, Buddy Holly, Billy Joel, Led Zep, Manfred Mann, McCartney, Meat Loaf, Mott The Hoople, Nazareth, Roy Orbison, Elvis, Queen, Rolling Stones, Roxy Music, The Shadows, Small Faces, Springsteen, Status Quo, Travelling Wilburys, 10cc, T Rex, U2, Walker Brothers, The Who, Yes, ZZ Top.

A lot of different bands there, a lot of different music - most of it all the same genre. I never get bored with it, though - it still sounds to me as fresh as the day it was recorded. And probably always will.

:D :D :D

Vic

The last thing the music biz needs is a BS machine that "Predicts" hit songs. What we need is good original music. Period.

Amen to that. In the end it's all down to what the individual perceives as "good" - like GrungeSunset says, good is a point of view. What I like isn't necessarily going to be what everyone else likes, and vice versa.

Vic, see, I would completely disagree with both of you on this very point. Good music lasts. The reason Classic Rock is getting huge airplay today is because the music is good and enjoyable, thus there is still a strong demand for it. The demand is in itself proof that it is better music.

Rap has been pretty popular for the last 20 years which completely amazes me. I've heard it plenty and I still don't get it. To me it is more of a cultural phenomenom than anything else. The kids are convinced (by the media) that it is cool to be a "gansta". You can see it in their dress too. Not saying it's all bad, but 90% is.

But I am willing to bet that 40-50 years from now (if radio still exists) that you will not be hearing Rap. You will not have thousands of radio stations playing exclusively Rap music. Now, I won't be around, but I can guarantee you this music (so-called) will not be around, or at least dominating the radio waves like Classic Rock still is. Once everybody moves on and realizes that being a gansta is really pretty dumb, you won't hear this junk anymore. Sorry if that offends anyone, but that's the way it is.

And it is already this way, you really don't hear the old Rap songs from 10 years ago anymore, or at least very seldom. It doesn't last because it isn't any good and there is no demand for it. There are a few (very few) exceptions.

Classic Rock on the other hand is stronger than ever. There are more stations playing this old music than the newer stuff. The kids claim only the geezers are listening to these stations, they get their music from the Internet, etc... But that is not the reality. People still listen to the radio plenty, and these stations play what the people want to hear (if they want to stay in business anyway).

You can only go so far in manipulating people's musical tastes. My 32 daughter was really into New Kids on the Block back in the 80s when she was a young teenager. She would laugh at that music today and maybe even be embarrassed that she liked it. As people get older you can't manipulate them to like music, they make their own choices.

Boy Grunge, I would like to see you walk into one of these music companies applying for a job and tell them that. :roll:

You are the one who thinks only your opinion is important. The vast majority is on my side.

Whether you like it or not, you will be judged by others your entire life. This is the way the system works, so you better get used to it. When you hold a job, it doesn't matter how great you think you are, if your boss disagrees you are gonna get the boot. When you get married, you may think you are the best, but if your wife thinks otherwise you are in big trouble. And when it comes to bands, you better bring people in the door, that is what matters, not your self-opinion of yourself or what you think is "good" music.

Sorry Wes, the majority may be on your side but all it proves is that your music is more popular, not better. Think of this analogy. Say you have a gathering of friends and you wanna order food, the choices are Pizza or Chinese food, the majority votes pizza. Does it mean pizza is better? No it just means more people like pizza. One may be better for YOU but we are talking taste here, not nutrition.

It's the same thing in politics. Canidate A says higher taxes for more school spending and canidate B says lower taxes for more money in your pocket. The 'right' person isn't going to win as there is no right or wrong. The person that is going to give the majority of the people what they want will win.

Back to music, I think that's all what's 'better' is based on, rule of the rabble. What the rabble says is in is always going to change so it's not the best system to say what is better. I know what I like. I would never say it's better, just that I enjoy it. If I went by what the majority said is better I'd be listening to classic rock (hate it), hip hop (hate it) and boy bands (ick).

Correct me if I'm way off on this but I'm assuming you value your own opinion too. I don't know you well but you seem to know what you like and aren't in it for the majority. So say if salsa became the new thing I would guess you'd still like classic rock and wouldn't be posting here that salsa is 'better music." Based on this, I'm not sure why you are arguing the majority is on your side so it must be better. I doubt you like it because everyone else does and quite frankly don't care why everyone else likes it. The $500,000 question is: Why do you like it? Which you've answered in previous posts. But the $1,000,000 question is: Why should I like it?
When you hold a job, it doesn't matter how great you think you are, if your boss disagrees you are gonna get the boot.

Funny, my supervisor said I wasn't cut out for my job. Now I am a supervisor.