Writing bad songs

[SamWattRock]

My ever expanding belt size convinces me I'm a very good cook, but I'm the only one who thinks so.

 

[miroslav]

Then really...you're just a bad cook who likes to eat and isn't all that picky about the the quality...unlike everyone else around you.

 

[miroslav]

I was just talking about the non-musical ways we decide what's good and bad, and what to even give a chance.

I do think that's often seen in the younger generations, the whole "peer pressure" thing....but yeah, lots of people latch onto something when they are in their late teens-early 20s, and that's the only style of music they ever listen to or really like............for the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying liking some style of music just because you grew up with it is a bad thing....but those same people often dismiss everything else they hear out-of-hand. The --- "It's not my favorite style, therefore I don't like it." mentality.

I still like the music I liked when I was younger, and when I hear a tune from my youth, I can enjoy it even today....but I don't listen to that stuff anymore on a regular basis. Many people become almost obsessed with what they grew up with.

I've kinda' gone through music style appreciation evolution every few years, and have happily developed a very wide music palate ...which I think is quite helpful with spotting good and bad songs without that music "style association" approach that so many folks use when deciding if they like or dislike something.

 

[grimtraveller]

Don't forget Surfin' Bird. It's probably the best song ever written.

But was it good ?

And I think you do have to write a few, or many "bad" (Or at least not up to your own standard) songs before you start to really become good at the art of songwriting or composing. It is the same as any other skill, practice makes perfect.

I was just thinking of the first song John Entwistle of the Who wrote ¬> "Boris the Spider". Classic piece of humour rock at a time when love songs {or disguised sex songs} were de rigeur. Or the first one George Harrison did, the hugely underrated "Don't bother me".

Someone mentioned on another forum that you have to write a lot of crappy songs before you can write anything good. I disagree.
What do you think?

I think as a general point that applies to everyone, it's simply not true. There are some people who wrote a load of shit before they started producing quality stuff consistently. By the same token, some writers started off writing good stuff.......then went drastically downhill.

Welp, I do agree that some songs are better than others

For many years, I've held the view that there are no such things as good and bad songs, only songs people like, songs people don't like and songs people are indifferent to.

You made a decision to give Dylan a chance based on legend status and his general reputation, where he "fits in" among other bands and artists you know you like. Indie rock artists such as the ones from the 90s you disparage are artists that you haven't given a chance for whatever reason...maybe they don't fit into what you feel a person like yourself should listen to, whatever. But your rejection is nonmusical, as is everyone's "decision" of what they should and shouldn't "try to" like.

Hmmm.....You know, it is eminently possible to actively dislike particular artists or genres. While I totally agree that some of the reasons are sometimes non musical {for example, lots of black people reject white artists, lots of older people reject rap, lots of young people reject orchestral music etc}, the vice is also versa. I just do not like death metal or thrash metal or Whitney Houston or Maria Carey or Justin Beiber or Metallica or Ragga or Kenny G. Not only that, even artists who have recorded lots of stuff that I like, there, more often than not, especially if they go on for many years, has come a point where I just don't dig what they are doing anymore. For me though, whatever the reasons I may have gotten into someone in the first place {be it by curiosity, accident or reputation, all of which are totally valid}, the rejection of their stuff {other than on certain moral grounds like discovering that person is an active paedophile or something} is musical. That's why I can happilly state I love some of the music of the Osmonds, the Mahavishnu Orchestra and Cream....

when 500 people think something sucks....and 1 person (like the guy who wrote it) thinks it's great...mmmmm, I think it's fair to say that it....sucks.

I don't.
John Lennon considered "Revolution 9" to be a seminal work, a good piece. I hate it and I know of very few that share his view. But that doesn't mean it sucks.

When you have millions of "Beiber fans" loving his music...that's OK for them, they are kids with evolving tastes. I seriously doubt that when they hit their mid-30s that they will still be obsessed with that stuff...but at this time, for that majority, that music is "good". For us, it's shit.

Interestingly, throughout my existence, there has never been a genre that, once I've liked it, I have gone on to not like. There's been a few songs, but no more than a ratio of 1000;1. Virtually all the stuff I loved from the age of 2 right up to 20, I still love and listen to now. Tastes definitely evolve but that evolution for me means the adding of stuff and broadening out of that taste.
There again, some peoples' tastes don't evolve.

I like Bob Dylan.

What ? Gasp...cough !

I've often found most music to be formulaic and more of a craft rather than an art. Just my opinion. Used to think I was an artist. Maybe I was, but now consider myself to be more of a craftsman.

Art is about the expression of the human being. Craft is about how you get that expression into something tangible. So as an artist, you have something within you to express which you want to get out. As a craftsman {excuse me ladies....} you put that into something the rest of us can appreciate, be it a song, a painting or drawing, a story, a film, whatever.

I don't like many of the songs I have written,

But were they good or bad songs ? I've written songs that I don't really like but they were 'good' songs.
In fact, there are loads of songs in my life that I can't stand and have no time for and hopefully will never hear again but I can quite happilly concede are 'good' songs from the point of view that they work.

I've often found most music to be formulaic

But by the very nature of songs and genres, there must be a certain formulaic element, especially once you've written 30 songs or more. It doesn't mean every song sounds the same but the more songs you write, the more you'll use the same elements here and there. It doesn't mean they'll all show up in every song.
Even a seasoned improviser who never plays a song exactly the same way twice will have a series of familiar tricks that show up in many of their pieces. The trick is to try and keep what might be 'formulaic' fresh and changeable.

I've found it to be a tough trick to not fall into some pattern of sounding like stuff you've heard all your life.

But the reality is that everyone that writes their own music is at certain points going to sound like or draw from stuff they've heard all their life.
There's a couple of scenes in the original "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi" in which bands composed of aliens are playing in bars. And what does this outer space music sound like ? Like stuff we've heard all our lives !
If I had directed those scenes, the music wouldn't have sounded like earth music, but then, it would've been unlistenable and that's why George Lucas is a millionaire celebrity film maker and I can't afford to go to Morocco or Turkey on holiday !

I've felt for a long while that songwriting is overrated. The way the song is arranged, performed and recorded is the key arbiter. The arrangement and performance could turn a flabby, boring song into a record that you'll keep digging till you die. Similarly, a really good song may never be perceived as one because the musicians recording it never did it justice. This can go any number of ways.

 

[fat_fleet]

I do think that's often seen in the younger generations, the whole "peer pressure" thing....but yeah, lots of people latch onto something when they are in their late teens-early 20s, and that's the only style of music they ever listen to or really like............for the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying liking some style of music just because you grew up with it is a bad thing....but those same people often dismiss everything else they hear out-of-hand. The --- "It's not my favorite style, therefore I don't like it." mentality.

Hmmm.....You know, it is eminently possible to actively dislike particular artists or genres. While I totally agree that some of the reasons are sometimes non musical {for example, lots of black people reject white artists, lots of older people reject rap, lots of young people reject orchestral music etc}, the vice is also versa. I just do not like death metal or thrash metal or Whitney Houston or Maria Carey or Justin Beiber or Metallica or Ragga or Kenny G. Not only that, even artists who have recorded lots of stuff that I like, there, more often than not, especially if they go on for many years, has come a point where I just don't dig what they are doing anymore. For me though, whatever the reasons I may have gotten into someone in the first place {be it by curiosity, accident or reputation, all of which are totally valid}, the rejection of their stuff {other than on certain moral grounds like discovering that person is an active paedophile or something} is musical. That's why I can happilly state I love some of the music of the Osmonds, the Mahavishnu Orchestra and Cream....

Ah, but go deeper my friends. Keep your eyes on the pendulum and go down down deep 'til you're beyond the point where you realize you're making a decision. As much as we all like to believe we know greatness when we see or hear it, aren't we all just a bunch of biased bigots? Art appreciation is an active process. If you want to get what a song has to offer, you've gotta work for it. Sometimes you've gotta listen multiple times...ignore continuity errors, technical things you might not like, assumptions about how simple or convoluted the creative process was for the artist, you have to kind of "lie back and let it happen", so there's a certain amount of trust that's necessary. Most of us are not willing to grant this to just anyone, and pointing out the myriad reasons why a song could possibly suck is kinda like being the guy in the movie theater loudly saying "Well, this is ridiculous, it could never happen!" and pointing out flaws in the story that might not be obvious to everyone else. Being a good listener is a skill (and one that's disappearing from all areas of modern society!). It takes faith and trust. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, you "trust" Mahavishnu Orchestra, Cream, Zeppelin, etc enough to lie back and let them take you places. Can you honestly say you've given thrash metal or Justin Beiber the same chance? Somewhere in their sets of aesthetics, there are flags your musical identity recognizes, and you put walls up and say you "don't like it". I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou, I think we all basically work the same way.

 

[grimtraveller]

Whether you're willing to admit it or not, you "trust" Mahavishnu Orchestra, Cream, Zeppelin, etc enough to lie back and let them take you places. Can you honestly say you've given thrash metal or Justin Beiber the same chance?

Yes and no. There are some things that I find I just don't like the sound of. Before thrash metal came along, metal, for me, was already at the point where it had outlived it's usefulness and was near standardized.
With say, Justin B, he's part of this conglomerate of young teenage singers that have descended in the last few years {Miley, Jeanette McCurdy, Ashley Tisdale, Miranda Cosgrove, Selina Gomez, Victoria Justice, Ariana Grande etc, etc, etc} and some of the songs I've heard them do are actually quite good. But I don't like any of his ~ yet.
On the other hand, you are right in a way because I'm not really interested in giving anyone a chance anymore. I've got all the music I want. I've spent 42 years getting to this point and I'm in no frame to dedicate any more time to getting to know intimately anyone else's music. I've done all that. Even when they bring out new Zeppelin recordings from gigs from the old days or unreleased recordings{or anyone else whose stuff I like}, I'm just not interested. Because where does it all end ?
That probably makes me sound very narrow minded. But I don't mind. I have an extremely wide palette when it comes to music and so many albums and singles crossing such a wide spectrum. I make no bones about the fact that my favourite musical period is the '64~'83 period {although I have lots on either side} and I rarely take part in conversations about music from the mid 90s on.
Naturally, every now and then, I'll hear something I don't have that knocks me out. But that's rare and I'm not looking for new music.
You could almost say I'm blissfully out of touch.

 

[miroslav]

Ah, but go deeper my friends. Keep your eyes on the pendulum and go down down deep 'til you're beyond the point where you realize you're making a decision. As much as we all like to believe we know greatness when we see or hear it, aren't we all just a bunch of biased bigots? Art appreciation is an active process. If you want to get what a song has to offer, you've gotta work for it. Sometimes you've gotta listen multiple times...ignore continuity errors, technical things you might not like, assumptions about how simple or convoluted the creative process was for the artist, you have to kind of "lie back and let it happen", so there's a certain amount of trust that's necessary. Most of us are not willing to grant this to just anyone, and pointing out the myriad reasons why a song could possibly suck is kinda like being the guy in the movie theater loudly saying "Well, this is ridiculous, it could never happen!" and pointing out flaws in the story that might not be obvious to everyone else. Being a good listener is a skill (and one that's disappearing from all areas of modern society!). It takes faith and trust. Whether you're willing to admit it or not, you "trust" Mahavishnu Orchestra, Cream, Zeppelin, etc enough to lie back and let them take you places. Can you honestly say you've given thrash metal or Justin Beiber the same chance? Somewhere in their sets of aesthetics, there are flags your musical identity recognizes, and you put walls up and say you "don't like it". I'm not trying to be holier-than-thou, I think we all basically work the same way.

There have been few songs they I hated...and then learned to like after hearing them 100 times.

Each style will require a different amount of detailed listening, of course, to pick up on all the song has....but songs that are really good or really bad don't require you to listen 100 times.
If anything, the more you listen to something by way of media playback and buzz/hype that comes with it...your are more susceptible to outside influences at the subconscious level.

That said, even if you need to listen 100 times....there's not some point where a bad song miraculously becomes good....in most cases. If anything, you may grow more found of something you already like, the more you hear it, but again, you are subconsciously programming your brain to become more use to it....and to appreciate it, so is it really good, or are you just convincing yourself that it is...???

I think the really good songs will be obvious at the first playback, but it all depends how you listen to it, and of course, that you are not poisoned by your own style preferences. IOW....you have to appreciate the style on some level before you can tell if it's a good or bad song. If you hate the style, chances are you will not like any of its songs.
The more styles of music you expose yourself to, the wider your appreciation level gets....and sure, you may still never learn to like some styles, and that is what it is.

Damn...that second cup of coffee really kicked in!

 

[Greg_L]

Lotta hypocrisy

 

[Mr Clean]

Music is music, songs just are.....regardless of what a person feels about them. What one person regards as a bad song, a million others will love.

 

[Greg_L]

Music is music, songs just are.....regardless of what a person feels about them. What one person regards as a bad song, a million others will love.

I agree. There is no objective measurement of a good song or bad song. Just opinions. Some people just accept whatever model is in place and go along with sales or mass appeal to decide whether a song is good or not. Some people can decide for themselves.

 

[grimtraveller]

There have been few songs that I hated...and then learned to like after hearing them 100 times.

If I don't like a song, I won't be listening to it 100 times !

That said, I remember when I first heard the Police's "Every breath you take" when it came out in '83. I thought it was utterly boring, uninteresting slop and I couldn't stand it. I heard it from time to time over the next 11 years and I never liked it. Then in the summer of '94, I was working on a campsite and while I was washing up with some of the kids, one of the camp workers was playing it. I'd heard it a few times over that summer and I grew to like it. When I hear it now, my mind's eye sees a bowl full of suds and dirty pots ! But I do like it.

Each style will require a different amount of detailed listening, of course, to pick up on all the song has....

I remember seeing a quote of Ian Anderson where he was saying that liking songs shouldn't be easy and that people should have to work hard in listening to music. I thought 'stuff that !'. But again, many times I've had to work hard to appreciate a song or album and once I do.......
The Pretty Things album "SF Sorrow" and Spooky Tooth's "Ceremony" are a case in point; when I first heard them, I recognized the odd bit here and there that I liked but I just couldn't get into them. For some reason I really persevered with both albums and finally, my walls caved in and I 'got' them. Now, both are indispensable to me.

but songs that are really good or really bad don't require you to listen 100 times.

It's hard to say why I'd persevere with some songs and not with others. Every day and moment is different. But I've never come across a song I dislike and said to myself "I am going to learn to like this song at all costs". My mind just isn't wired that way.

That said, even if you need to listen 100 times....there's not some point where a bad song miraculously becomes good....in most cases. If anything, you may grow more found of something you already like, the more you hear it

Well, I don't deal in bad and good songs. There are songs that I don't dislike as opposed to actively liking that grow on me as the years go by. I came across one at the weekend called "Squeet" by May Blitz. I've had the album it's on for six or seven years. Probably heard it 12 times. It's rarely enthused me, either the song or either of their two LPs. But on a long drive on friday the song just lodged in my head and I played it over and over for three days. It's a great piece !
Funny thing is I barely remember hearing it before.

I think the really good songs will be obvious at the first playback,

Well some songs obviously stand out the first time you hear them. But they may not endure in quite the same way or with that impact.

If you hate the style, chances are you will not like any of its songs.

There's a lot of truth in that.

I agree. There is no objective measurement of a good song or bad song. Just opinions.

I used to have this argument with a friend of mine. We had it for many years. He was into his statistics and was of the opinion that if enough people liked a song, that made it a good one. I never thought that. To be honest, I don't deal with 'good' or 'bad' because it's impossible to have some yardstick by which you gauge whether something like a song is either, that applies to every person and every song at every time kinda like

Music is music, songs just are.....regardless of what a person feels about them..

The fun for me is in people swapping their views on groups and songs and specifying for them why they think they're good or bad and then seeing the counter viewpoints. I like debate, not dogma.

 

[Greg_L]

He was into his statistics and was of the opinion that if enough people liked a song, that made it a good one. .

Most of the unwashed masses are just like that. People with no musical background are like that. Kids are especially like that. They'll like whatever their friends or peer group likes. Many of those braindead kids grow into braindead adults that just go with whatever is "popular". Public acceptance, mass appeal, or general sales are horrible indicators of anything being good or bad. People en masse are stupid. Popularity does not equal good. They are mutually exclusive. They sometimes can be the same, but they aren't inherently the same.

 

[DM60]

I keep reading this thread and I think, I'm going to post something, then it really has already been said. But, here is something I can't remember if it has been said or not (after all, it is a long thread). I no longer think in good or bad. There are popular songs and there are song that are musically very astute (sorry, couldn't figure out a better term). There are classics that people love to hear from every different orchestra. the tone of the hall, the conductor, and that same music, most people wouldn't give it the time of day. Jazz is another music that, has all of these elements to it and some people die for it, other say, hey what the hell is that s%^t.

Right now, I just focus on, what can I do to write what I think is a good song. Maybe not musically the best, not the best performance, not the best mix (I've read the post on the reviews, I know), but something I think I am contributing. Nothing more, nothing less. Good or bad is just a bad term to use for music.

I would think most on this site has enough appreciation on what it takes to do all of the above and have a hard time saying something is bad. Cause, most everyone appreciates it one way or another. Whether we like it or not. You see this all the time in the mixing threads. People jump on a song, many say, hey this isn't my forte, but here is what I hear.

So there are songs I like and songs I don't like. Nothing more, nothing less. (See I've been storing up to post).

 

[miroslav]

To be honest, I don't deal with 'good' or 'bad' because it's impossible to have some yardstick by which you gauge whether something like a song is either, that applies to every person and every song at every time kinda like.

No one is saying that there is some scientific "measurement" out there that can objectively rate songs as good or bad...it's all subjective...so I don't know why some people keep bringing that up, as it's kind of silly.
That said, the other perspective...that as long as one person likes a song and thinks it's "good", it automatically wipes out the opinions of a million people who might all think it's "bad"....is even sillier.

Art is not an exact science....it's pretty subjective, but it has a good/bad scale...and yes, sometimes the scale even tips from one side to the other over time, but there can most defiantly be a large consensus of some kind that agrees on what is good or bad art, and that one guy out of a million who thinks the opposite...doesn't make it good art.

Someone might think Elvis on velvet is fine art (I like Elvis, so no freak outs from the Elvis fanatics )....but it's safe to say that few would agree that it's good art.
You can go sit in at one of those songwriter groups, and I can guarantee you will spot good songs and bad songs, and it won't be that hard to do. Just like it's not hard to do on the radio....since we've all heard bad songs getting tons of air play.

To say there is no such thing as bad songs or bad art would mean that everyone has the talent to create on the same level....and I don't think anyone here really believes that.

 

[smili]

I'll say it. The first songs I wrote were junk compared to what I write now. And I'm not ashamed to say I've written alot of bad songs. all fwiw.

 

[rayc]

Some songs I like, others I don't. There're even some songs I respect but can't get into.
Every Breath I dislike = partly because it's Sting, partly because the riff had been used by Nick Lowe not than much earlier (well if not Nick then someone from the post punk/new wave era) and to some degree because i couldn't believe all the couples billing & cooing to it when the lyrics told such a mysognist/unpleasant story.
Did you recognize the fact that on most greatest hits albums the jits were often rerecordrd by the band to match Mr Sumner's preferred arrangements?

 

[grimtraveller]

No one is saying that there is some scientific "measurement" out there that can objectively rate songs as good or bad...it's all subjective...so I don't know why some people keep bringing that up, as it's kind of silly.

Yet, if you take what you've been saying about the ability of people to rate a song as good or bad, then in a way you are subscribing to some sort of yardstick ~ just one without the scientific hoohah. I was, in part, responding to your point that if 500 people thought something sucked, but one didn't, then

Originally Posted by miroslav

I think it's fair to say that it....sucks.

. Why ? On who's authority ? All you have there is 500 people that think something sucks. To them it does. But you can't have it both ways. The majority opinion is only that.......but to conclude, therefore that it's fair to say "it sucks", period, because of the 500 is taking the legitimacy of judgement into a whole different realm. It's almost using science without quite stating it, but dressed in subjectivity. I'd rather just keep it what it is - subjective.

That said, the other perspective...that as long as one person likes a song and thinks it's "good", it automatically wipes out the opinions of a million people who might all think it's "bad"....is even sillier.

Well, it would be if that's what was going on.
But it's not about wiping out anyone's views or opinions. The joy of subjects that can house many opinions is they are not a contest to establish supremacy or a dispute for which Iraq must be invaded.......the paradox is that we are perfectly capable of having diametrically opposed views about the same song. And both would be right. My goal in telling forth what I think of said song isn't to rubbish your view or to persuade you to mine. It might've been 25 years ago. It certainly ain't now.

Art is not an exact science....it's pretty subjective, but it has a good/bad scale...

I don't dispute that. What I dispute is that the good/bad scale is the same scale for everyone. It isn't. While probably all of our scales overlap at various {but different} points there are billions of those scales.
I used to do lengthy "reader views" on some on line record review sites. One of the reviewers in particular on one site {he did lots of interesting reviews} would denigrate, for example, some of Black Sabbath's songs on their early albums, simply because the vocal melody followed the riff. To him this was 'bad' songwriting. To put it kindly and diplomatically {}, "I disagreed !". The standard he ascribed to was totally different to mine.

but there can most definitely be a large consensus of some kind that agrees on what is good or bad art

Sure. No problem with that. That's precisely what I'm saying. It's about consensus. But consensus is rarely absolute. Remember, we are talking about songs; we're in the realm of what human beings like.

and that one guy out of a million who thinks the opposite...doesn't make it good art.

If you genuinely believe that art appreciation is subjective, then yes, yes it does. It makes it good art to that one guy in a million.
Admirers of Picasso were way in the minority once. He was thought of as something of a charlatan. Try getting an original of his on ebay now ! Van Gogh sold very few paintings in his life. They were deemed to be pretty average. You won't find any today on Gumtree or lost in someone's attic !

To say there is no such thing as bad songs or bad art would mean that everyone has the talent to create on the same level....

It doesn't mean that at all.
There will always be different levels of creative talent. A superb pianist and composer might not be able to break through the way an average guitarist might. Because their songs are 'worse' ?
And that's part of my point. There are so many factors that come into how we gauge something to be good or bad when it comes to songs and songwriting, not least the way we ourselves change.

 

[grimtraveller]

To put it another way, what exactly is a good or a bad song ?
And how do you gauge it's goodness or badness ?
And here's one for those that can actually answer that ~ are there any bad songs that you really like or like at all ?

 

[Zane1Tsu]

Songs are subjectively good or bad, based on opinion. But let's examine why we like the songs we do. I think a good song is a song that connects emotionally to at least one person other than the song's writer. Music is a form of expression, and if the song doesn't connect with anyone, communicate something, evoke some sort of emotion from the listener (other than the "this song sucks!" emotion), then that is a bad song. Might as well be noise, or better yet silence. What you are expressing doesn't matter to anyone then. A good song compels one to listen to it, over and over again, trying to find that connection again, and get those endorphins going. I think a good song leaves you wanting more. I feel like my favorite songs are always too short, or there's a bridge, or guitar part that could go longer, but if it did, I have a feeling it wouldn't be as addictive.

Some songs do connect with more listeners than others. Does that make them better? Not necessarily. I don't really think the masses truly know what they like, which is why pop music is force fed to them. Play it every hour on the radio and it'll get stuck in they're head until they think they like it. Also, some songs, and the person performing it, are just more marketable. Not better, good or bad. Usually bad, IMHO. With that being said, there are some songs that become wildly popular because they are that good.

But back to the OP. I think you have to write as many songs as you can. Some people might have a higher good/ bad ratio, some not so high. But the point is to write as much as you can because, number one, you'll refine your craft. Number two, you'll build a catalogue that you can cannibalize parts from. Ever write a weaker song, but you knew the bridge, lyric, or whatever, was solid? That's worth saving for another song. Hopefully, a "good" song.

 

[grimtraveller]

Music is a form of expression, and if the song doesn't connect with anyone, communicate something, evoke some sort of emotion from the listener (other than the "this song sucks!" emotion), then that is a bad song. Might as well be noise, or better yet silence. What you are expressing doesn't matter to anyone then. A good song compels one to listen to it, over and over again, trying to find that connection again, and get those endorphins going. I think a good song leaves you wanting more.

This kind of demonstrates why there's no such thing as a good or bad song. Both paragraphs could refer to the same song.

I don't really think the masses truly know what they like, which is why pop music is force fed to them.

I don't think you know even a microscopic fraction of the masses, much less what each individual member of "the masses" like or don't like or don't know what they like !

Play it every hour on the radio and it'll get stuck in they're head until they think they like it.

Isn't it funny how we, who make these kind of statements, are somehow always exempt from such small mindedness.

Play it every hour on the radio and it'll get stuck in they're head until they think they like it.

For the record there have been plenty of songs that I've heard plenty of times before liking ~ that's actually part of the process of getting someone to like a record. Let's face it, once you like a song, are you never going to listen to it or will you listen to it for the rest of your life ?

Play it every hour on the radio and it'll get stuck in they're head until they think they like it.

Do you think people are so dense that they can't actually know that they like something or not ?
There are songs I've heard tons of times for 40 years ~ and I still can't stand them.
They weren't bad songs though !