How important is subject matter in songs ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter grimtraveller
  • Start date Start date
BroKen_H said:
Good call, Chili. That's right on the money. The band Illuminati that I was in in Denver in the 80s wrote great lyrics, put them in the right places and wrote on topics that people of Ill's genre could relate to (Iron Maiden-ish). But the people who were interested in signing a contract with us wanted control over the song writing: "Slow this down", "This needs to be quieter" and the guys in the band weren't interested on the "artistic freedom" argument and passed on the contract. I wanted to go along with the contract on the "it's only three albums in three years and then we can do whatever we want" argument, but I lost. So now I work for the world's largest retailer.
Click to expand...

If it was only three albums in three years... Well, I could write what they wanted for three years. Jingle writers do it all the time. If you had a contract in your hands waiting to be signed, that's a big endorsement that what you were doing was right.

Of course, back in the 80's contracts were all for the record company, not the artist. You might be out of debt by the time you start your fourth album. Then you get to do the it your way, the label wouldn't promote it as much, it would flop and they would release you from the contract after having wrung everything they could out of you.

What's that statistic again?? Out of all the bands, 1% gets a record contract and 1% of them get past their 2nd album. IDK, I just made that up... :D
 
Chili said:
If you had a contract in your hands waiting to be signed, that's a big endorsement that what you were doing was right.
Click to expand...
Well, you'd think so wouldn't you ? But the inevitable question arises ¬> if it was so right, why would the record company want to change it ?
 
grimtraveller said:
Well, you'd think so wouldn't you ? But the inevitable question arises ¬> if it was so right, why would the record company want to change it ?
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^^^

The fabled "record deal" used to be the benchmark of making it, when really it hamstrung bands and put them in financial binds. Sure it was a huge step to stardom and was pretty good bragging rights if you actually were naive enough to care about that sort of thing, but it didn't mean you were anywhere near actual stardom and that shit has to be paid back. I used to know quite a few bands that had solid deals and they toured the country but still lived in a van and made 5 bucks a day. I still know guys that had solid deals back in the day and they now have to work regular blue-collar day jobs because that shit just doesn't pay off for most people that sign the paper.
 
Oh, I know a record deal isn't what it's made out to be. But if you're a young kid in a band and an A&R guy came up to you with papers, that means you're doing something right. Playing is good, singing, performance, stage presence are all there; working as a band instead of 4 or 5 egos, etc. That's what I mean by "it's a big endorsement".

I don't know if record deals of today have changed since the 80's or 90's, but I think the record labels should completely change their approach to how they sign bands. Instead of collecting from the artist after sales, they should just sign the artists up as employees and pay them a salary. The label would pay all expenses but keep all the profits except for the songwriter who would still get the standard rate on top of his salary.

The band would be required to perform a certain number of gigs each year, produce one album or a certain number of singles, PR tours and events, etc. The label gets all the revenue and pays each band member a fixed salary. The songwriter would still be entitled to his 9 cents per song sold, on top of his salary. The label would pay for all studio time, production, promotion, marketing, distribution, travel and venue expenses, etc. The band would get performance bonuses if sales hit benchmarks. If the band is still on the charts after a couple of years, they get increases in salary and a share of the royalties, ticket sales, merchandising.

No starving musicians and the label could potentially make a ton more money.... er, if the market would support it.
 
Chili said:
Oh, I know a record deal isn't what it's made out to be. But if you're a young kid in a band and an A&R guy came up to you with papers, that means you're doing something right. Playing is good, singing, performance, stage presence are all there; working as a band instead of 4 or 5 egos, etc. That's what I mean by "it's a big endorsement".

I don't know if record deals of today have changed since the 80's or 90's, but I think the record labels should completely change their approach to how they sign bands. Instead of collecting from the artist after sales, they should just sign the artists up as employees and pay them a salary. The label would pay all expenses but keep all the profits except for the songwriter who would still get the standard rate on top of his salary.

The band would be required to perform a certain number of gigs each year, produce one album or a certain number of singles, PR tours and events, etc. The label gets all the revenue and pays each band member a fixed salary. The songwriter would still be entitled to his 9 cents per song sold, on top of his salary. The label would pay for all studio time, production, promotion, marketing, distribution, travel and venue expenses, etc. The band would get performance bonuses if sales hit benchmarks. If the band is still on the charts after a couple of years, they get increases in salary and a share of the royalties, ticket sales, merchandising.

No starving musicians and the label could potentially make a ton more money.... er, if the market would support it.
Click to expand...
back in the day those 'good' contracts you're talking about weren't what you assume.
For the vast majority of the bands the record companies merely advanced them money to cover recording costs and distribution costs and you had to pay that money back from touring income.
Some good friends of mine were in Louisiana's LaRoux who had at least one number one ..... several well received albums and I think 7 or 8 albums altogether. After years of touring and promoting the albums and really doing pretty well they all ended up in debt after it was all over.
 
Did everybody miss the 2nd paragraph of my post?? :confused:
Chili said:
Of course, back in the 80's, contracts were all for the record company, not the artist. You might be out of debt by the time you start your fourth album. Then you get to do the it your way, the label wouldn't promote it as much, it would flop and they would release you from the contract after having wrung everything they could out of you.
Click to expand...

I know the record deals were bad for the artist and that they went into debt and didn't recover until about their 3rd album. I've read the book by Amos Somebody: Confessions of a Record Producer something.... :)

I was just saying that it would be cool if they changed the way they treat artists. Talking paradigm shifts in the industry. Maybe a guaranteed paycheck would encourage a songwriter or band to work harder and give us better music (like my tunes!!! :p)
 
Chili said:
Did everybody miss the 2nd paragraph of my post?? :confused:


I know the record deals were bad for the artist and that they went into debt and didn't recover until about their 3rd album. I've read the book by Amos Somebody: Confessions of a Record Producer something.... :)

I was just saying that it would be cool if they changed the way they treat artists. Talking paradigm shifts in the industry. Maybe a guaranteed paycheck would encourage a songwriter or band to work harder and give us better music (like my tunes!!! :p)
Click to expand...

I will sign you to my label Chili. I just have to purchase more of the tape for the labeling unit. I have some of the old red stuff left, but I think the green would be better. Red just seems so angry. lol!
 
jimmys69 said:
I will sign you to my label Chili. I just have to purchase more of the tape for the labeling unit. I have some of the old red stuff left, but I think the green would be better. Red just seems so angry. lol!
Click to expand...

Okay, but I won't go on tour. Oh, and be sure the limo driver knows to stock Napa Valley wine, not the crap from Sonoma. And I don't know who you're going to hire to be my guitar tech, but he sucks already and I want someone else.

The red labels are fine. :mad:





:D
 
Chili said:
Okay, but I won't go on tour. Oh, and be sure the limo driver knows to stock Napa Valley wine, not the crap from Sonoma. And I don't know who you're going to hire to be my guitar tech, but he sucks already and I want someone else.

The red labels are fine. :mad:





:D
Click to expand...

I will have my people contact yours. lol
 
This is all true. In retrospect, I'd say I'm pretty happy with the way things turned out (not getting the contract). Grim & Greg hit it on the nose. If we were so great (and listening to recordings of that band today tells me we were probably OK, but not the next big thing) why did we need to bring out the vocals, slow down some of the tempos, etc. So the band broke up, I went back to my original band, and made money playing the Denver bar scene instead of being in debt to Warner Bros. Either way, I'd probably still ended up stocking shelves for Wal Mart...But it was worth the ride! If you don't chase your dreams, you end up dead before you die!
 
i dont think it matters if your just looking for a hit but most epic timeless songs have clear understandable and relevant topics.
 
To me it depends...if a song is instrumentally very strong, I don't care as much; but if the music is very plain or even lacking there had better be some good lyrics to pick up the slack. Of course there are some songs that I simply cannot enjoy regardless of how good the music is or how well it is arranged...if the subject matter is needlessly offensive, too obvious, or down right ignorant then I don't seem to enjoy it.
 
grimtraveller said:
Does the subject matter of songs make any difference ? Is it important to understand what a song is about or is that irrelevant ?
Click to expand...

Seeing as you only seem to be interested in your own opinion and require only one word answers.

My answer is.

No

:thumbs up:
 
Hit songs - have a great melody, hook but not necessarily great lyrics
Classic songs - have a great melody, hook AND lyrics (with great meaning, often personal to the songwriter)
Difference between a Hit song and a Classic song is that a Classic song will always be remembered whether it's 5 yrs from now or 100 yrs from now.
Hit songs are often forgotten after 1-2 months after its release.
 
Do people honestly think that by bashing someone else that maybe it adds credulity to themselves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top