Hit Song Science

IMaybe it's time to find new ways to use new technologies? (anyone knows when we'll finally move to something a tad more interesting then stereo for example?)
I've always thought the Borg had some things right.
Put a direct input jack into the cranium with leads that go to sensory regions of the brain.
For music, as an example, bypass the ear drum/cochlea hardware and have direct input into the auditory region of the brain.
I'm willing to experiment on any volunteer. I've got a hand drill and some leftover BellSouth telephone cable in the garage.
I just needs someone's head . . .

KR2

(anyone knows when we'll finally move to something a tad more interesting then stereo for example?)
We've had things beyond stereo for decades. But, having merely two ears, and most people not having optimized acoustic rooms for listening to their music, stereo does everything we need it to. Driving down the highway listening to a car radio with the windows down makes stereo overkill.

The idea that technology will make things different really kind of misses the point of recording. We record stuff so that people can basically time-shift a performance. We've gone beyond that a bit with mixing and patching by allowing a performer to put together an ideal performance for the recording, but the idea is still basically the same. Technology will make that more and more efficient, but the reason people want recordings isn't going to change. It's the same now as it was the day the first track was laid to wax.

Maybe that's why less recent stuff sounds better??? My own boys are technically savvy...and they've ALWAYS had a computer nearby. We didn't. There's just "too much" computer software coming to bear on today's sounds...and this generation just does NOT realise it!Cat

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nothing like starting the day with a good joke. In case it was not a joke: yeah, computers give a lot of creative options that was unheard of in the 60s. I'm sure that must be very scary to some.

No...but the REAL joke is that nowadays "it's easy to hide" for those that downright stink! :lol:

Cat

Maybe that's why less recent stuff sounds better??? My own boys are technically savvy...and they've ALWAYS had a computer nearby. We didn't. There's just "too much" computer software coming to bear on today's sounds...and this generation just does NOT realise it!Cat

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nothing like starting the day with a good joke. In case it was not a joke: yeah, computers give a lot of creative options that was unheard of in the 60s. I'm sure that must be very scary to some.

No...but the REAL joke is that nowadays "it's easy to hide" for those that downright stink! :lol:

Cat

Hey Cat :D
I don't think we've 'met' yet.... Good to see ya around 8)

Now, I've been watchin' this thread for awhile, and I just don't get the attraction.
I'm sure everyone knows that I love the old stuff.... it's just; well....

Okay; I remember readin' about some of the old 60's Frisco bands talkin' 'bout when The Butterfield Blues Band
(w/Mike Bloomfield) came to town.
They were all reverent and such.... they were like: WOW! and this cat, Mike Bloomfield.... He even played his guitar;
IN TUNE!!!!

Yeah....
The studio recordings of bands like Jefferson Airplane (Jorma was an awsome guitar player) were great....
Live, eh.... not maybe so great.

I love the Doors.... ever hear any of their live stuff?
Great musicians.... not in synch all the time.
And Morrison;
He couldn't sing his way out of a wet paper noodle!
Thank goodness for great producers and engineers.
(as a matter of fact - The Butterfield Band was signed to Electra too!)

How many of those old bands had crack studio musicians play their stuff?

The greats, like The Doors, Hendrix, The Beatles.... would be nothing without their producers....
And the record company owners back then that let them get away with that stuff.

And really.... I grew up in the 70's;
FM radio?
Come on!

We listened to WLS AM in Chicago ALL THE TIME!
I didn't know about FM or Punk or New Wave until the 80's!

'LS played the same 10 'top 40' songs on a continuous rotation.

The new years eve top two songs thru out the 70's were Hey Jude & Stairway to Heaven!
They switched between #1 & #2 every other year!
No Kidding!

70's Hard Rock, like James Gang & Free.... Didn't know about them til the 80's!

We listened to Queen and that ilk.

I tell ya, I haven't listened to RADIO in I don't know how long.
(Unless I go visit Chicago.... then always WXRT; Greatest station ever) (Now streaming online! :wink: )

The Band; Remember them, with Rick, Richard, Garth, Levon, & Robbie????
They came out with a very influential album in 67/68 called Music From Big Pink....
It was very DIFFERENT from the times....
they claimed it was because they never listened to the radio at that time!
Had no idea what was going on in pop music.

There's a new TV series that I watch called Mad Men;
The main character says that success is not about fitting in.... it's about STANDING OUT!

So.... where am I going with this....?
Dunno.

All I know is that back in the day, people like Arjen and me and bunches of others here, would never have
been able to record our stuff like we do, and have it heard by all of you.
And that's pretty cool.

As much as I like Analog recordings and wax albums....
I'm grateful to have this technology....
Not only to get my stuff read/heard,
also, to hear/read/communicate with you all.

Ken

All I know is that back in the day, people like Arjen and me and bunches of others here, would never have
been able to record our stuff like we do, and have it heard by all of you.
And that's pretty cool.

As much as I like Analog recordings and wax albums....
I'm grateful to have this technology....
Not only to get my stuff read/heard,
also, to hear/read/communicate with you all.

Ken

:D

You nailed it Ken!

Not only can I record it, I can write the whole thing out in notation and then get the computer to play it all for me, using software instruments. When (OK...if..) I get the talent up to scratch then I can replace it track by track with audio of me doing the job myself. For somebody like me - a hobby player who has an amateur interest in writing, composing and arranging - that's absolutely brilliant to have access to. :note1: :note2: :note1:

To the original question... the software looked like a rather pointless con to me, but that's not to say people won't fall for it and shell out the money. But can you use a formula for success? Sure you can. Keys, scales, chord progressions, cadences, etc are all types of formula for shaping random sound into appealing music of various kinds, so there's a start. Add hooks, style and image and you've made a good start... But that's not enough.

Like any other business with a product to sell in a competitive market you have to have a sellable brand image, a big budget for advertising and PR, a reliable manufacturer of the product, and all the rest of the usual requirements. You also need to set yourself up for a longish haul. Banking on one big shot at sucess is always a low percentage strategy. For those on the business side of things, the main game is to be right often enough to keep the balance healthy and the money rolling in. That means depth and not just temporary flashes on the radar. At the creator level, in any business, the cash won't start filling your pockets just because you have an idea - no matter how good it is. You also need the whole marketing package and a ton of work. If all that appeals, then a pro career is fine. If it doesn't then keeping the fantasies as just that, and not breaking your heart trying to turn a dream into reality is sometimes a more comfortable option. Good luck to everybody, whichever way they go.

Cheers,

Chris

To the original question... the software looked like a rather pointless con to me, but that's not to say people won't fall for it and shell out the money. But can you use a formula for success? Sure you can. Keys, scales, chord progressions, cadences, etc are all types of formula for shaping random sound into appealing music of various kinds, so there's a start. Add hooks, style and image and you've made a good start... But that's not enough. Chris

Chris! Do you ALWAYS need to be the voice of reason??? :wink:

Yer spot on with the "but that's not enough" bit. Look at Ric's day job, for example. A PhD in Medicine just does NOT fall out of the sky with the last rain! Sure, science will deliver CT and MRI scans, labs will give you info on all sorts of stuff goin' on...BUT...it's the "art" in "medical arts" that ULTIMATELY correlates all this science. The doc puts "humanity" into the equation...not science. I think it's a good analogy to "hit song science"...

These many posts pit "art against science"...with art being the mode of choice by pretty much everyone.

"Hit song science" is one of the better posted threads (thanks, Sunset!) because it makes the thought process "black or white". Sure...science can come up with all sorts of paradigms. But the human bit determines the art bit. OF COURSE science will leave "more for the musician" to accomodate: just look at BW's use of the Theramine on "Good Vibrations".

I mean...sure...science is most definitely behind the "electric" guitar???? We're talkin' magnets under a vibrating piece of metal transducing the signals into an amp and, ultimately, into sound, right???

But it doesn't "play itself", now does it?

Cat

Chris! Do you ALWAYS need to be the voice of reason??? :wink:

Nah, mate it's all just a pose... My other hobby is writing and I'm working on the character of an old man who likes to waffle on a bit. So I test him out here now and then to see if anybody would believe in him. My real name's Debbie, and I'm just out of high school so, as soon as the implants have settled down a bit, and stopped disappearing under my armpits every time I sneeze, I'll be across for an audition. I'm one hot singer... 8)

"Hit song science" is one of the better posted threads (thanks, Sunset!) b

+1
Good one GS. Soon I'll be able to say "yeah, I knew her when back she only had one wing and one power chord, and look at her now....". Those were interesting links in your original post, and it's sparked off a heap of debate. :)

Cheers,

Chr.. Debbie

You can do more than just the right channel left channel stereo. You can locate the direction of the sound. I know a lot of Beatles recordings are some instruments on one side, some on the other, but we haven't really done much more than that have we? I mean apart from your home theater setup?

You can do more than just the right channel left channel stereo. You can locate the direction of the sound. I know a lot of Beatles recordings are some instruments on one side, some on the other, but we haven't really done much more than that have we? I mean apart from your home theater setup?

Good recording/mixing/master engineers know how to work with the levels, real or synthesized reflections (delay effects) to recreate a two-dimensional -- and in some special cases, three dimensional -- sound stages using only conventional stereo playback equipment.This technological "art" has been known and put to practice for quite some time. It's often the difference between flat, lifeless sounding stereo reproduction and that which sounds "alive" and realistic. There are also more recent and complex audio processing techniques that don't require special recording/mixing to "enhance" (jury is mixed) imaging -- Carver's Sonic Holography and SRS are the first that comes to mind. The earlier quadraphonic and current variants of surround sound are best created through special recording and mixing, though the somewhat compromised stereo to surround conversions are possible.

But the art of creating a great sound stage with "mere" stereo is a real and beautiful thing.

This technological "art" has been known and put to practice for quite some time. It's often the difference between flat, lifeless sounding stereo reproduction and that which sounds "alive" and realistic.

Ain't it the truth! For the life of me, I can't see any software doing this. Sure, new tools can be given to the engineer...but, ultimately it's someone's brain's call to get it right!

Cat

*cough* geezer *cough* :lol:

There is a lot of software out there that allows you to do exactly that in your home studio. Unless of course you mean doing it right and artistically, that does require the knowledge and experience. No software in the foreseeable future is going to handle that... 8)

Wes: Just figured you might find this interesting:
http://www.last.fm/charts/artist?charttype=weekly&subtype=artist&range=1220184000-1220788800

It is the chart of Last.FM, a radio station where you pick your own music. It contains practically every major artist as well as thousands of indie bands. The community is huge (millions of people) and diverse, people from my class are on there but so is my professor. Seems like the 'general population' seem to want a mix between new bands and 'legendary' acts. Radiohead and Coldplay have been swapping places for the last two month but in the top twenty you find bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd and Led Zep, the Beatles even were the 2nd most popular act about six months ago. More recent 'classics' in the top twenty are metallica and Nirvana, for exampke. It's really a pretty cool list if you ask me, at #31 there's Bob Dylan and four places lower is Sigur Ros, a fantastic young icelandic band.

Is this a list you'd stand listening to?

Sorry for posting so late but I was in the hospital so I couldn't exactly post. However, I have given a lot of thought to the question this thread poses that being: Can something subjective like music have one piece that is 'better?'

The answer I've come to is........no. Pouring over the thread the 3 prime arguments for classic rock are: it's unique, the majority like it and the business execs don't have a play on producing it. I'll start with the latter of the 3. I've yet to see any proof of this and am not sure how someone who majors in business would know how to change the music. Secondly, I'm not sure how external input is a bad thing. I saw a show where an indie band gets to audition for record label but before hand they work with the singer from Treble Charger. His advice was along the lines of "You have 3 mics up here, use them for harmonies" or "try strumming it like this" or "this chord sounds better." None of this advice really wrecks the artist's vision nor would it make the music worse.

On to the unique thing. The problem with this is being unique doesn't mean "better." I've had unique hair cuts that I thought looked stupid. I've seen movies that were unique in style and cinematography that I hated. Also, I think Robert Plant has a unique voice but it makes my skin crawl when I hear it. Personally though, I don't think classic rock is all that unique. Maybe unique compared to the mainstream but I listen to a lot of gothic music that sounds way different that anything played on the radio today or 40 years ago. Not a lot of people like gothic rock either because it is different. Which is more proof that unique does not amount to being better.

The whole argument that the majority likes it is something I thought upon the longest. The question that comes to mind is: if classic rock is better wouldn't everyone like it and not just a majority? The problem is liking an artist or song doesn't come down to 'better' but the listener. Depending on the listener's: age, demographic, culture, personality type, past experiences and brain chemistry will determine whether or not the listener likes it not uniqueness, what the majority likes or who had input on making the song.

Music is way too subjective to say one song/style is better than another. The biggest problem is not everyone has the same criteria for saying what is good and what is bad. Also, what one person says makes the music good, another says makes it bad. I remember reading a review of a movie called Bloodrayne. All the critics hated it saying the story was set up kind of like a video game, the violence was over the top and it wasn't deep enough. Those 3 reasons the reviewer hate the movie are the reasons I love it. So with so many variables in one person's taste to another, I don't see how anyone can say one type of music is better.

Sorry to hear you were in the hospital. Glad you're back!

Good is a point of view.

Ah, but that's YOUR point of view!

Sorry, couldn't resist that one!

You know, I'm pretty much in agreement with Wes when it comes to the whole "classic rock" versus "the new stuff" issue - and yet.......

99.99% of the time, I listen to Planet Rock - "The UK's Classic Rock Station," as it describes itself on the station I.D. That's because I know I'm going to enjoy 99.99% of the music on there. The Stones, AC/DC, Led Zep, Aerosmith....that's the kind of music they play. BUT - they also play Metallica. I've heard quite a few of their songs on PR. AND - Nirvana get played as well. I've heard Johnny Cash's version of "Hurt" - I've heard T.Rex and Slade on there. What I haven't heard on PR is any old Elvis, Cuck Berry, Fats Domino, Little Richard - surely you'd file them under "Classic Rock" as well as "Rock'n'Roll?" You'll never hear any early Beatles on there - I think "Help" is about the only pre-Strawberry Fields fab four song I've heard. You'll hear "Bad Moon Rising" and "Up Around The bend" - you won't hear "Looking Out My Back Door" or "Who''ll Stop The Rain." You'll get "Start Me Up" and "Jumping Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" - you won't hear "Little Red Rooster" or "Angie" or "Miss You."

So it would seem "Classic Rock" is a point of view!

Like I said, I listen mostly to Planet Rock - but I've got more than Classic Rock in my record collection, I've got albums by the Platters, The Walker Brothers, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, Manfred Mann, The Shadows, Buddy Holly, Elvis, The Beach Boys, Roy Orbison. I've got a boxful of old Motown Albums - Supremes, Four Tops, Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. I've got a lot of other albums you'd class as soul music - Joe Tex, Wilson Pickett, Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, etc, etc, etc.

The reason I bought all those albums? Not because they're classic rock, or rock'n'roll, or the pop and soul music I grew up listening to.....I bought 'em because I liked the music. Not because of the category they were in. It might surprise you to know what my all time favourite piece of music is - it's not rock, or rock'n'roll, or any of the above mentioned categories - it's Steven Sondheim's theme music from the film "The Magnificent Seven." You'd hardly call THAT rock'n'roll, would you!

:D :D :D

Vic