Hit Song Science

People shell out $200 for all kinds of reasons. The bigger question is "who can afford to shell out that kind of money for a concert?" One of the reasons classic rock sells more is that, usually, the tickets cost more. What kid can afford to see Crosby, Stills, Nash (with or without Young) on his own? Some of my students went to see Fallout Boy this summer. Tickets were $20. You've got to get ten people to see Fallout Boy to even equal one ticket to Billy Joel. That certainly will tip the scales in favor of the bigger acts, no? And (again historically) this sort of thing has gone on all our lives. In 1968 how many tickets to the Greatful Dead would equal one Elvis ticket? It's almost always the middle agers that go to concerts where the ticket prices are high enough to ensure getting into the top grossing tours. Pretty much has been throughout history.

We're just kicking around the same argument over and over again, my friend. We see the same numbers and you say "this proves the music's better" and I say "this proves that the people who can spend this money like this music better." That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I can live with that.

Peace

WARNING: Brief Profanity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL4MbTGjB7U

Ken

Yeah, Ken! Needed that -- getting way too serious.

I don't think I paid more than about $7.00 to see any of the "classic rock" bands when they were becoming "classics."

I am not saying the young people of today couldn't make better music, I am saying they aren't allowed to make better music.

Yeah...true enough. Mom and I are pursuing our family project and sinking a fortune into it. Will I let three teens that have trouble finding their socks dictate what they think will be profitable?

There's a far smaller group of people out there that can discern what is "art" as opposed to what is the commercial mainstay. If we still had Court Musicians living well thanks to Royal Patronage...okay, things'd be different. Back then it was mUCH simpler: "What does the king like?"

People "package" all sorts of things due to economic constraints (IE: US election). I'm STILL waiting for one or the other to offer "chocolate cake fer ev'y'body"!

But considering the possibility of "hit song software"??? Nah! You may generalize the issue by saying that lots of Classics fit into AABA structure (or others) and trick yourself into thinking that some download into your 'puter will give you a leg up on the market...but, again...it's that "market" that seems to be where the software is needed: WHAT will satisfy the market?

Continuing this thread, in reality, needs the discussion turned toward "what" (in the strictest sense) is needed to make a Classic. :?: Actually...if EVER there was a group put into one place at one time to do this...GN may well be it! I mean...have you EVER gotten a more diverse view on "the universe and everything"??? :lol:

Cat

Hey Cat, do you suppose ABBA got their name from a song structure?

I mean...have you EVER gotten a more diverse view on "the universe and everything"??? :lol:

Cat

OH man!
I go away for a few days and you guys have already discussed the universe and everything????!!!!
I had so much to say!

KR2

You guys crack me up! (Ric, you just QUACK me up!) :lol:

Seriously...if anyone NEEDS help coming up with "hit song science" it's me! A couple of tunes are to AABACBAC...and a couple are AABA. One's just a good ole R45. But ONE will come off a long-lived classic...that's a promise. So I'm pretty okay with what I've written...or so I've convinced myself. It's the acouterments I'm worried about...the PR, in other words. No kiddin'...I'm lookin' for a "Brittney ten years ago" (for vocals :roll: )...which is also GREAT to see my boys' reactions to auditions! (Still, Mom's quite handy w/rolling pin so...don't read too much into that!)

So...I guess I'll be hangin' it all out over the next bit of a while so you lunatics here on GN get to see either a success...or a dismal failure. Along the way...a dad gets to jam with his sons. This is worth the fare, in any event!

Cat

The arts in general are impossible to be defined as this is the "best" etc. Music is the same way. There is no one best era of music every era has good and bad.

When we talk about formulas though there were formulas in the 60-70 too. Every rock song had to have a solo in them? Why? Because that was the formula at the time that's what sold. Alot of the modeern bands especially during the grunge years of the 90's got away from having solos. I doubt it's because none of them could play solo's. I think they were moving in new directions getting away from the music their parents grew up with Classic rock.

If your a teenager growing up in the 90's why would you want to copy the music from the 60 - 70's?

If they were still putting out music that all sounded like the 60 - 70's music would be quite boring.

First, the issue would be false positives. Given the large number of non-hits each year, the false-negative rate wouldn't be nearly as important as the false-positive rate.

That said, I would guess a much better predictor would start not with the music, but with the number of dollars the publishing company is spending on promotions, the number of radio stations that are accepting the song into their rotation, and name recognition of the artist. After those factors are considered, analysis of musical factors in relationship to recent hits might be useful. I stress 'might.'

I have to agree with Grunge Sunset and David, I don't think anyone can say that any one genre of music is better than another. People like different types of music for different personal reasons and every generation and genre has its own innovators as well as formulated clones of the same bands. I like all kinds of music. Some I prefer to others but can't say any one type is the best. My CD collection ranges from Liszt to Alan Jackson to Duran Duran to Whitney Houston to the Beatles to Evanescence, etc.

I like songs that move me and that I can relate to. I think most people do and I find as I get older it is in fact harder to relate to some of the newer music. I think that is mainly due to the subject matter more than the music itself and that doesn't mean that it is not as good as what I grew up with. It just means that I don't personally get a song like "I kissed a girl and I liked it". That's not to say that I can't like any of it, I like several new bands and songs. I just find the majority of newer pop stuff doesn't really make me go star in the personal music videos I play in my head like the older stuff does. My mom loved Motown and hated the British 80's bands I listened to and I am sure I will hate most of whatever my daughter listens to in 10 years or so.

I think what makes a song popular is how it affects people and I think this is where a computer program fails. The program only accounts for beat, tempo, chords, etc. and not for lyrics or meaning or what part of people's lives the song is reflecting. Songs become hits for many different reasons. Some because they have meaning and really touch people and others because they are just fun and you can dance to them. I don't think one is any greater than the other. I can get just as much enjoyment from "Livin La Vida Loca" as I can from "In My Life", just a different type of enjoyment.

I think what makes a song popular is how it affects people and I think this is where a computer program fails.

Ain't THAT the truth!

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

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.

Formulaic crap is formulaic crap whether generated with the aid of a computer or not. The computer may help you produce said crap much faster, but it doesn't stink any more than manually produced crap.

I was just wondering, what exactly changed with the computer? Sure, you have an undo-button, copying tracks goes much faster, time-based effects are more consistent etc etc but fundamentally mixing a song is almost the same as it was fifty years ago.Maybe 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?)