"stars" succeed with weak songs - WHY?

S

smirky

New member
new, unknown groups usually have to record good, or let's say hooky songs in order to get somewhere. last week I heard a song on the radio - "black coffee" by the All-Saints. I thought: now this is indeed a REALLY weak song - no hooks, no catchy chorus, no good melodies at all. won't make it to the charts, never. today I saw it in the newspaper: nr. 1 in the UK. WHY?
does good marketing (or good looks :-) really compensate poor songwriting? can "stars" really succeed with any crap?
 
Because we are a CONSUMER CULTURE and "Artists" ...for lack of a better word... have become pretty little plastic things you pull off the shelf and put in your pocket. People are spoiled, stupid and deep as cookie sheets.
 
Yes, stars can succeed with any crap. :D

If you could be signed today, would you? REALLY? I mean, a free haircut is all good and well, but I don't want to be Ricky Martin.

Every accomplished artist I can think of wants out, wants their own company. And many have succeeded.

Thanks to the internet, we really don't have to worry about that much anymore. Someday a unified information service will avail itself, not only to our PCs but cars, work, radios everywhere.

By the way, did I mention Macy Gray is UGLY?! Now THAT is a marketing success story (in terms of sales, not image approval).
 
There's still such a thing as payola, and if the airwaves are saturated with a mediocre song, the kids buying the shit fall for it because "if it's on the radio, and I've got one of their albums already, then it must be good and I have to have it..."....the new plastic radio conglomorations are supposed to have set playlists, right?....how do the playlists get made?....do you think the record companies might have something to do with that?....also fake call-in requests for songs....usually pre-recorded....grumble...fart....gibs
 
Actually Gibs, there's ONLY payola now. For the last 30 years any corporate owned radio stations don't play anything they aren't payed to.

What's worse, is that they not only have the power to get awful songs played ad nauseum, but they also have the power to keep good songs off the radio. Back in the heyday of Pink Floyd, the Wall was the bestselling album in the US, and they were playing 4 soldout nights at the Hollywood Bowl. As an experiment, the AR guys decided not to pay the promotion man who covered LA. As a result, no station in LA even mentioned the band.

This sad fact has led to companies "working" the records that cost them the most money to produce, or artists who sold them the publishing rights, since they stand to make more money. Just think about how many times you heard Lenny Kravitz's Fly Away on the radio, and how many people you know who bought the record.

Jeff
 
I'll do you one better...what's really gross is to hear tone-deaf kids trying to sing this new crap at karaoke shows. Yikes!!!!!!!!!!
 
hi
as jevasy is telling the world of music is going to be a matter of business.I heard somewhere that during the next 100 years later the stars will be famous for about only one day but the money that they will catch for this short time will be enough for their life ,as we can see about the world of movie the story is the same ,do u think for example tom cruse can be famous as long as alen delon ?this is the matter that producers and directors in the moviemaking business like.mankind is changing to have more things with more different flavors and producers are extending it for catching more money.But i like to ask the other songwriters here WHAT WE CAN DO IN THIS CHANGING WORLD?
 
We can IGNORE them!!!

We can listen non-profit radio, either campus or community. We can buy music from independant artists. Go to more live performances, and buy fewer/no corporate CD's.

The sooner we all start ignoring this barrage of CRAP, the sooner they'll stop making money on it and it will go away!!
 
thanks for the link, Wil, great article!

so maybe we should all have some plastic surgeries instead of concentrating on songwriting... :-(

cu, smirky
 
The music biz is 3 parts. Many of us overlook some of the things that makes things work. In no particular order here are the 3 things musicians need.
Good songs
Good product IE Live shows, CD's etc
Good business skills
The all saints or whatever have 2 of the 3
They have a cool guy light show and all the dance moves and all. Also they have a team of business men working for them marketing their music so it's forced to succed.
What they don't have is good music.
Look at the Grateful Dead. The were around for many many years. They had good music, a killer live show and made good business move.
 
Gibs is Right.

We are(Especially in the US)a people who have to be told what to drive (Subaru) what to wear (Tommy Hilfiger) What we crave (White Castle), etc...etc...
It is no different with the music industry.
MTV, since its inception, has dictated what young people should buy, through heavy rotation of what they deem as the "Flavor Of The Month".
Music Pimps, if you will...
Those of us who want well-crafted music or insightful lyrics of any genre will have to support our local NPR or College stations to hear this music.
"Popular" music has gone the way of Bic Lighters. It is hot for awhile, but ends up as disposable garbage.
I recently went into a music store looking for a CD by a band called "Sparks", which came out around 1977.
When I could not find it under "Rock', I asked the sales guy if this CD was in-store somewhere. He told me they filed it in their "Alternative" section. After not beeing able to get an intelligent reason for this band to be filed under "Alternative" I realised that most record stores file a band under "Alternative" if they have never heard of them before, and their cover looks cool.
I told the guy there is no such thing as "Alternative" anymore, because what you call "Alternative" is now the
norm. "Popular" music, if you will...
So what is "Alternative" music?
Probably Andy Williams...
DJ
 
Here are some of my random wanderings through the subject:

The reasons are myriad and varied. Many of the obvious ones have already been listed in earlier posts: marketability, timing, business sense, business contacts, market analysis… and all of the other things they would teach you in business and marketing classes. After all, this is a business that relies heavily on marketing of the product. And we have a fast food society. Quick satisfaction with a plastic prize in the box sells the units, but does little for true nourishment or a culinary experience.

But consider this reason, which many of us who participate in our forum may not like to hear. In the heyday, of American popular music (early 1900 through 1970's) you had to have a major financial commitment to begin to record and press decent quality recordings. As a result, artists (performers or songwriters) had to produce an ROI such that it would keep the recording company in the black. To do this with minimum investment from the recording companies they diligently sought out those that promised to perform good in the long run. "Blue Chip" artists if you will (e.g. Holland, Dosier, Holland; Booker T. and the MG's; Glen Miller, Richard Cohen, Bob Dylan). Sam Phillips, here in our fair city, nearly went bankrupt because he would record every truck driver that came in the front door with $5. Fortunately for him THE truck driver came in the front door one day and kept him afloat when he sold Elvis's contract to RCA for a grand total of $30,000. This one break saved his a** and gave him the resoureces to work Cash, Lewis, Perkins, et. al. A fortunate break for him, but just luck none the less. Maybe hard work, but I've heard Mr. Phillip speak before, and I don't think so. Even some of the "one hit wonder" performers actually had further success behind the scenes as writers, producers, or studio musicians.

Enter the 1980's…

The digital consumer age has begun. Good quality recording equipment is getting cheaper. Also, the www is catching on which will make marketing and distribution of recorded material that much easier. And a two front assault on our beloved music industry ensues. First, every schmuck with a six string, a microphone, and Micro-verb sends in a demo tape to the record companies. This flood of %^&* makes it that much harder for people with good ideas to get heard by the right people. Second, fed up with not getting noticed by the big-boys due to reason number one, our talented artist decides to do his own recording. But not having the connections to the radio stations and big time record distributors, most go unnoticed in the big picture. Selling records to the local outlets and at shows is about the best you can do when you try to do everything yourself: performer, writer, producer, engineer, manager, roadie, and in desperate times groupie.

So what can WE do? Glad you asked. Just say, "no." I'm not talking about turning down your uncle's request to record your Granna's favorite hymn for her to listen to at the house. But if someone with no talent wants you to record his songs because he's a legend in his own mind, give him constructive criticism from an honest ear. Be judicious, honest, and helpful. But, if "IT" is not there, tell him. Just because someone has $500, doesn't mean he needs a demo to send out. Seek out good material to record and use the input from this group of ears to get honest and (hopefully) helpful input.

The defense rests.

Memphissound
 
not me i'm recording every truck driver that enters my place.seriously p.t.barnum said there is a sucker born every minute.with the right promotion you could sell ice to eskimos.that's the part that sucks,even with music that would make the angels envious,it would be hard to get an album sold if you didn't have the right marketing.so bone up on your business courses folks,and your law courses too.you are sure to need them if you are going to get any where on your own.
 
I think its different nowadays. Artists don't get spotted as such. The big corporation look for good looking men and women (as young as possible) and then rear them and market them extensively.

The problem is that the everyday person listens to, and is influenced by the media. They think (this is my opinion) that because they are advertised and on TV, that it must be good. And honestly if we were not so inquisative we would not even know about the alternative scene etc.

These songs and artists like are all from the same corporations like Waterman etc. and they are manufactured. "Shake that booty and you are on TV man".

I personally think they should be publicly executed
 
Sheep.... the sheep are the reason that song sells....The sheep are also the reason "stars" sell millions of dollars worth of crap.... Show the sheep something, tell them they love it, and they will buy it.

bhhhaaaah.....
 
I happen to fall on a different side of the fence on this topic. To classify the bulk of popular music as garbage and advocate supporting the indie artist simply b/c their music hasn't been embraced by the masses is, in my opinion, a very shallow solution to an age old debate. Popluar music is very cyclical. Don't like what you hear? Stick around - your flavor of the month will reappear. If you don't like the music on the pop charts, then don't listen to it. But why rant against something that isn't catering to your tastes to begin with? The market is full of musicians who have large fanbases and make a good living very much outside of the realm of what your local DJ will spin.

I'm a 28 year old musician and songwriter. No, I don't own a Britney / Backstreet / N' SYNC album (I mention these b/c they seem to be the ones that get railed against on this BBS most often). But some of those songs are well written and excellently produced. Not my cup of tea, but then again I'm not that target demographic those groups are shooting for. So, my case is this. Music tastes relative. You've got the power to choose. Of course there are some great indie artists out there and some lame major label acts. But the market will weed those laggers out. BTW, one good thing about bigger labels is that there is a screening process involved and the better acts typically are offered to the public. Will we like every single one? No. But it sure beats flooding the place with weak material. There's plenty of it out there - some of it even right under our noses.
 
Sorry Creek but IMHO your way off.
You've obviously never had a record deal.

1) You said stick around and your flavor will come around. Unfortunately this is no longer true. Radio used to respond to the tastes of it's listeners and try to evolve as the tastes did. Now radio dictates those tastes. The only way for music to be cyclical anymore is if radio stations and record labels stop making money.

2) You talk about the major labels having a "screening process" when deciding which artists will be offered up. The problem is that probably only 5% of the cd's released by these labels get any serious promotion/airplay. What determines which acts get it is a combination of, how much of the publishing writes they signed over, which A&R rep signed them, and how much money they've already invested.

I've been in two bands that had record deals, one had some great songs and one didn't. The one with the better songs got limited promotion because we didn't take salaries, (our choice since it's all recoupable from royalties). Therefore if we didn't do well, they were only out the cost of recording and 2 videos (about $125, 000).

The second band took salaries, stayed in better hotels, and spent almost $400, 000 making the cd. Spent another $150, 000 on the first video, had lousy songs, but got serious airplay. I left because I knew we could never recoup at current royalty rates, (and I hated playing those garbage songs), but the record company is still promoting them like mad because they've already tied up so much money, it's there only hope to make it back.
Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top