Hit Song Science

Wes: Just figured you might find this interesting:
http://www.last.fm/charts/artist?chartt ... 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?

Arjen, thanks for that list, that was very interesting. Actually, looking at that list I would say neither Modern or Classic Rock is more popular, looks like a tie to me. :D

Now, I have an advantage really, because most people would classify Classic Rock as maybe anything 20 years or older. You yourself called Nirvana a Classic Rock band, although I think of them as a modern band. But that's me, I tend to think of everything from the Grunge movement in the early 90s and forward as new, even though it's almost 20 years old now. So, if you count everything from the 60s to the 90s, you are going to find more great songs than you would from the 90s to today.

But my argument is this, can you compare Coldplay or even Radiohead with the Beatles?? The Beatles haven't been together since 1969 and yet they are #3 on that list nearly 40 years later. To me, that shows that the music they made was very good, and that is why it has remained popular. But will you find Radiohead in the 10 Ten on a list like this in 40 years??

By the way, I really like Radiohead myself, I truly think they are a great band. :D

Other bands that I would really call Classic Rock (60s & 70s) on that list were Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, AC/DC, The Doors, Johnny Cash, Aerosmith, The Clash, The Who, Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, Black Sabbath, Ramones, Beach Boys, The Kinks, Bruce Springsteen, Simon & Garfunkel, Deep Purple, Tom Waits.

That's a pretty impressive list, and I am not counting 80s bands like The Police or Bon Jovi and many others.

Thing is, you could probably check this list 10 years from now and all these bands will still be on the list, but many of the modern bands listed will not be there.

And look, I know that music is personal, there is no "good" or "better" music. Man, everytime I hear some young person driving down the street with Hip/Hop and Rap blasting, I personally think it is horrible music. But you know what? I hear that all the time, so this music is very popular with the young people. I do believe people are conditioned to an extent to what is popular at the time, especially during their teen years. So who knows? Maybe 40 years from now a list like this will have many current Hip/Hop and Rap artists on the list.

But I wouldn't bet on it. :wink:

Other bands that I would really call Classic Rock (60s & 70s) on that list were Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, David Bowie, AC/DC, The Doors, Johnny Cash, Aerosmith, The Clash, The Who, Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, Black Sabbath, Ramones, Beach Boys, The Kinks, Bruce Springsteen, Simon & Garfunkel, Deep Purple, Tom Waits.

I'd argue with some of that list.....

Dylan, you could fit into several categories - would you really label him a "rocker"?
Johnny Cash, I'd file under country - that's the genre where most of his best known songs would fit, anyway.
The Clash, under punk or new wave...same for the Ramones.
Marley, under Reggae....
S&G, under Folk....
Tom Waits, well, I dunno to be honest - most of the stuff I've heard of his has had jazzy influences.

Those artists all had something in common, though - ATTITUDE! They all wrote what THEY wanted to write, and played it in their own styles - not what some guy in a shiny suit thought they should write, or play. You could probably fit a lot of all their output into the genre of "Protest Songs" as well - different styles, maybe, but certainly, a lot of their songs have been about, as Jack Black so elegantly put it, "Sticking it to the Man!" So maybe "classic rock" isn't just a point of view, it's an attitude as well?

:D :D :D

Vic

Vic

No, I don't think of Johnny Cash or Bob Marley as rockers whatsoever. I was more referring to bands from the 60s and 70s.

I kinda see different eras within Rock music. I see the 50s with the super clean guitar tone with lots of reverb, the 3 and 4 part harmonies, and the I, vi, IV, V progression that was played to death. This era started in the mid-50s and continued up until the early 60s. I see the Beatles as the beginning of the "Classic Rock" era with the Bristish Invasion especially, but continuing until the early 70s. Then there was Disco for about 5-7 years, then Rock came back with New Wave and Punk bands like the Talking Heads and The Ramones. But I still think of these bands in the Classic Rock era. Then the 80s came which to me was sort of different. The guitar was not so prominent and you got lots of synths sounds like Flock of Seagulls. This was also when "Hair Bands" began to emerge and the beginning of shredding. Then Rock flattened out again for a few years until Nirvana came out and popularized the Alternative and Grunge movement. In the late 90s bands like Korn and Limp Bizkit came out and started the super-low tuning craze.

I have seen a change in Rock since the very late 90s, I don't know what you would call it now.

No, I don't think of Johnny Cash or Bob Marley as rockers whatsoever. I was more referring to bands from the 60s and 70s.

Yeah, I know what you mean - the era, the whole vibe, rather than a particular style - Woodstock, the Isle Of Wight, Monterey etc....and there was such a HUGE variety of styles, too. To quote something you said about four and a half years ago.....
I think younger players can learn a lot from the music of the 50's, 60's and 70's. Let's face it, music was better then. But it's not because people were smarter, or more talented, or anything like that.

No, the big difference is that at that particular time, musicians were allowed far more liberty and control over their music. Musicians were allowed to go into the studio and do pretty much whatever they felt like.

Today, there is too much control by the record companies. As soon as somebody comes out with something fresh, in no time you will hear 50 groups playing the same style. Record companies today go by trends.

In the late 60's you had Psychedelic music like Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane and Pink Floyd, Latin music by Santana, Folk rock by Buffalo Springfield, and Crosby Stills Nash and Young, Swamp music from CCR, Country rock from the Allman Brothers, Eagles. You had the beginnings of Classical rock from Deep Purple, Heavy Metal from Black Sabbath, Jazz fusion from groups like Steely Dan.........

You name it, it was being tried. And all at the same time. That is the big difference.

FM radio was fantastic. DJ's would play whatever they wanted. They would play entire albums. The only thing close today is College radio.

If ever the record companies would get smart and allow musicians this liberty again, you would hear GREAT music again.

People, if you think you're going to change Wes's mind on this subject, I'm telling you, you're fighting a losing battle!

:D :D :D

Vic

Aren't hits something that you know when you hear them...and not until then??? I'd like to see "science" come up with a better way!

Cat

Man, everytime I hear some young person driving down the street with Hip/Hop and Rap blasting, I personally think it is horrible music. But you know what? I hear that all the time, so this music is very popular with the young people.

Kinda unrelated but I really don't believe that. When you check those Last.FM charts you'll find the #1 gangsta rapper 50cent at place #258. Apparantly focussing on rap so much on television earns the channels enough but urban is really just one part of modern music.

As for modern bands in ten years or so: it depends. I think that every next wave keeps the best of the last wave and adds a bunch to that. The majority of modern bands will slip into oblivion before long, like most, at the time, popular acts from the 60s. Those who remain become symbols of that era. Baroque=Bach, Classical=Mozart, Romanticism=Chopin, rock n rocll=Elvis, psychedelic rock=Jimi Hendrix, experimental britrock=Beatles etc etc. Right now 'alternative brit pop' is pretty hot (and far from alternative, ironically) and there's no way the history books have space for all of them. You already see it with grunge, a relativy recent genre of music. After less then two decades the genre has practically become a handfull of bands, with Nirvana taking most of the spotlight.

Radiohead is a band I assume will stay. They have been hugely popular for 15 years or so and have influenced modern rock music in so many ways it'll be felt for a long time. I really see them as the new Beatles: pop music, borrowing heavily from the past, mixed with freeform experiments to create something fresh and new. Coldplay is a band I think will vanish, despite their popularity they are just too bland. Being harmless ain't enough to be remembered for. But so will the list of older acts get thinner and thinner. I'm sure the Beatles will stay for a while but I fear the worst for Lou Reed and such. Plenty of people of my generation have no clue who he is, or what velvet underground was.

But in the end I think that from every period some music will be added to the list of alltime greats. Maybe in 300 years Mozart will represent all of the classical music and Abba represents all of 20th century music, who really knows? But something will remain and that's what matters.

Wes said,
I do believe people are conditioned to an extent to what is popular at the time, especially during their teen years. So who knows? Maybe 40 years from now a list like this will have many current Hip/Hop and Rap artists on the list.

And this I would agree on. To me this is when your musical self is formed. So if you grew up in the late 60's - 70's you are going to like Classic Rock for the most part.

If your teen years were between 2006 - 2009 it's doubtful that the Beatles or Classic Rock will be your favorite music. Sure there are exceptions but most of it has to do with at what point in life you were exposed to the music.

Hi all,

Many of us would probably agree that all eras produce mostly stuff that's quickly forgotten, and a small selection of ‘timeless' material. But there are always going to be times that are ultimately more significant and generate a more productive creative output. For instance, most people have heard of the Impressionist movement in painting, and it's effects are still very much alive today, but many other directions are less well known and significant. The 50s and 60 saw the birth and rise of the electric guitar, and coincided with big changes not just in the way music was made but also with very significant political, social and technological changes. You can't reproduce such a combination of factors on demand.

There's a particular type of energy at the start of any major new direction that is hard to sustain. Strong new waves do come through fairly regularly, but the real tsunamis are much less frequent. And many apparent trends turn out to be not much more than a few ripples from a handful of pebbles in the pond.

Much also depends on what you are exposed to, particularly in the formative years of your youth. I've enjoyed Classical music for a very long time - but not because I grew up in Bach or Beethoven's eras. :wink: Well, not quite anyway... My mother used to play classical LPs, and I grew to appreciate it. At the same time I was hearing Rock, Folk,Pop, Blues, and some Jazz via friends or the radio, and I found something to like in all of those too.

But I haven't listened to the radio for music for decades, and I rarely watch TV - my life is just too full of other things. I make my own music, and I already have hundreds of CDs that don't get played enough. Would I like rap if I gave it a better chance? I don't know, but possibly not - it's aimed at a range of emotions, an age group and a social structure that I'm unlikely to be all that interested in.

What about whatever the current popular trends are though? Again, I don't know because I just haven't spent time listening to it. If it's aimed at teen rebellion, teen angst, first love, etc then I've probably already come close to maxing out there, so it would need to be pretty exceptional to get my attention. For me, it's not about whether I prefer Bach, Mozart, The Beatles, Van Morrison, Radiohead or Coldplay - it's more about being familiar with the first four, but not having knowingly ever heard anything from the last two.

However, on checking, in seems that I did hear something that Radiohead had a hand in as writers. I recently came across a link to a song (Rabbit in Your Headlights) by somebody I'd never heard of, called Unkle . So I listened to the song, and watched the video that came with it. Apparently it's 10 years old now, but it was one of the best combinations of sound and video that I've ever seen. I don't imagine that I'd have any special reason to remember either the music or the visuals on their own for more than a week or two, although both were good, but the combination was outstanding. So that was intriguing. Most of the vids I'd seen before that were just eye candy trying to sell the song. I don't think that I'm closed to appreciation of new music, I'm simply less likely to have the time and interest needed to keep seeking it out and getting into it all. Too many other things to do....

So I'd say that ‘manufacturing hits' in terms of sales figures is clearly possible if you have all the resources - which means both considerable business muscle, a good ear for musical popularity, and a good eye for marketing. But manufacturing something that history will view as a timeless musical classic is another thing altogether.... :)

Cheers,

Chris

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.

IN DEFENSE OF THE SUITS: :lol:

"The suits" in the Artist and Repertoire Department of any label hear a whole mountain of stuff all day/every day. BUT!!! Some stuff brings actually DOES appeal to their senses. Even though they hear so many things...a scarse few actually "bring them to the moment". In that respect...they are a lot like us. Most play six strings, too. Hey, some are on this site...

Next step..."the suits" drop in on some of your live gigs to get a handle on the group's live club following. Bear in mind that The Suits have a few platinums among them...

What do they find? Hey...not only can the prospect write well...they can pull it off!

Okay, then you call 'em in for an interview. They had initiated all contacts to your Label in the first place. Now you need to get the "suit talent" in synch with the "music talent".

They WANT to make a living with their stuff...you ALREADY make a living with your stuff...so, in essence, you (et al) gotsta part with the Seed Capital...nothing shy of $500K as starters.

THAT"s when that song becomes a hit, Sunset. If I gotta size up "hit song science" it's probably the software in some accountant's software...not in the song-writer's!!! :?

Cat