Can you Produce a "Hit Song" ?

[marcher5877]

Like the good old chicken and the egg story, which came first.... The egg of course![/quote]


But man, where did the egg like, come from?!!?! Like, the Chicken!-man!!!

far out, far far out....

[boody]

idols is a marketing concept: make people known and even famous with a tv show. The winners first single will sell as a hit... peroid. People buy it because they connect emotionally to the person who has won in 'their' show. That's also why celebs start to sing; they have a bigger chance of selling 'anything' and a musical career is always good for extra attention... and you might earn more...

If people connect emotionally to a song and an artis you can have a hit song, regardsless of the 'quality' of song, production and sound, as long as it is recognised as a song, is understandable, you can sing something along and it sounds ok on avarage sound systems.

Rap is a cultural form of music. Connects emotionally to people with a certain way of life. All the bling bling and flesh appeals to people who are coming from or relating to a poorer 'street' background and of course offenses people who don't understand or relate to that background. Same goes for any style of music really. The music in this case is the spinoff of a lifestyle, the rolemodels of that lifestyle will be most successful, regardless of the 'artistic' value of the song. As long as they are considered hip or hot or excelent by a mass of people who relate to that particular lifestyle.

Certain groups of people like to do the same dance at the same time. It gives them a social satisfaction. Hence the succes of margarena and the likes. Line dancing and ballroom dancing comes to mind.

Some people relate to a certain story. I saw an Oprah show: housewife decides to do something with her own written music, country(?) singer makes it a nr1 hit. Why? The housewife writes in an easy to understand style that connects musically with the emotions a lot of people recognise. The singer (and her team) knows how to translate it to the masses in an easily digestible way.

A hit song should be easy digestible. No worries when you sing about heavy heartbreaking subjects, as long as you wrap it in nice enough to not depress the masses and they can sing along worryless when housekeeping/cardriving/working etc.

A production can make a song instantly recognisable. Bring in the hook. The gimmick that draws attention. People will recognise the song faster, and the ones that like the song will be drawn into it faster. Same goes for sound signature. A sound can work as a logo and make the song stick out.

When speaking about the song material; you cannot define it. Too many different styles, artistic opinions, substyles... Ask two rap-insiders from different areas about their favorite song... probably have a hard time agreeing on a song they both think is great.... just as in any style. Ask people who are not really into rap and they will agree on a great rap song a lot faster...

So as a conclusion to my rambling a hit song probably:
-has parts that are easy to sing along with, lyricly and/or musically
-isn't too style specific/artistic but is recognizable as a style by the masses
-has a hook or specific sound signature
-is brought by an artist people easily relate to, they can love or hate
-is marketed in a way it is heard and recognised by the masses
-has an emotional effect on the masses because of one or more of the above

my two cts of course, ymmv, etc. Just came back from a gig and used this post to relax

cheers
budy

[allencollins]

I think I could produce a hit song.
But just in case I really don't have the skill
I think with a few ki's and some hookers I could get
the major market stations to 'produce' a hit for me.........


George Martin, Rick Rubin, Mutt all great producers
but not as consistent as this dude 'Payola' who produces
more hits than all those guyz

[musicmann]

Like they have always said.. "The song's the thing".. and like Boody says, "quality" is not the issue.. There are a whole load of other standards at work.. And they are in the minds of the listeners. The listeners minds vary greatly, so what makes me go, "YEAH!!!!" makes others go "Bleccchhh!!!"..
Whatever the genre, the song is king of it all. The marriage of song and production is absolutely key, but production with no song rarely yields a bona fide hit. Even if a hit song seems really stupid to you, maybe it really seems funny to someone else. And there's a big difference ....

[Tibbon]

Originally Posted by allencollins

George Martin, Rick Rubin, Mutt all great producers
but not as consistent as this dude 'Payola' who produces
more hits than all those guyz

+1. I don't think I've ever agreed with you so much.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell

You have to take yourself out of the "industry" point of view to understand I think.

The songs on the radio make me want to puke most of the time. But I'll be damned if I don't run into non-musician types every day who love the crap. It's not that a crappy song is dressed up by production to trick people into thinking it's good, or that marketing forces it down people's throat. The songs that are hits are actually what average people want to hear. It's sad, but that's just the way it goes now a dayz. In the 70's the industry was run by the insiders. Producers, musicians, and people who were really into great music. But THEY force fed good music onto people. Now it's more market driven and the people who actually like good music are no longer in control. So it's governed completely by demand. Unfortunately Americans demand mediocre crap.

Great post. thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

Pretty much perfectly said. Except:

Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell

the people who actually like good music are no longer in control.

They are still in control. They are just choosing what people would buy. Not what they (personally) actually like.

To the original question:

Yes. Production can make a mediocre song a smash. But not always.

Production can be very consistent. I can make all my productions sound equally well. But that doesn't mean they will all be hits. Otherwise the big production teams would always be the same. And they're not. There's a healthy dose of randomness involved. Sometimes the production sucks but it's still a hit.

[timjames]

a hit record is the perfect marriage of song and production..... it wasn't always that way but it has been in the modern era (mid seventies till now). one really doesn't have a chance without the other.... and for what it's worth .... the labels don't make(market) hits... if they could do you think they would put out so many stiffs???? if it is a true top 10 record the people have spoken!!!!!

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Rufuss Sewell

Now it's more market driven and the people who actually like good music are no longer in control. So it's governed completely by demand. Unfortunately Americans demand mediocre crap.

I just wanted add more proof to this position.

These are the top 9 movies last week. Notice the Rotten Tomatoes ranking. (Based on all movie reviews averaged out)

1 - I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry - 14%

2 - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - 77%

3 - Hairspray - 93%

4 - Transformers - 57%

5 - Ratatouille - 96%

6 - Live Free or Die Hard - 80%

7 - License To Wed - 8%

8 - 1408 - 76%

9 - Evan Almighty - 24%

It's pretty obvious that the average dope doesn't spend their money the same way the critics would.

[dreamsongs]

Hmm....everything that's been said here is true...

I've been listening to the new Maroon 5 CD and it's the epitomy of a "polished to the max, radio ready, OK songs" that I've heard lately. I started listening just to get some production ideas, now I actually like a lot of those songs.

They are so tight and so well put together that's it's ridiculous, but you know what, it works. They all come in just under 3:30 and they move so fast and grab you till the end and until the beginning of the next song. There's not even one second that is wasted.

The songs may not be great but I could imagine many of them be mediocre in it's raw form (piano/guitar and vocal). And then listening to them completely produced it's amazing what these guys can do. It completely proves the point we are all making to some degree...

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

Hmm....everything that's been said here is true...

I've been listening to the new Maroon 5 CD and it's the epitomy of a "polished to the max, radio ready, OK songs" that I've heard lately. I started listening just to get some production ideas, now I actually like a lot of those songs.

They are so tight and so well put together that's it's ridiculous, but you know what, it works. They all come in just under 3:30 and they move so fast and grab you till the end and until the beginning of the next song. There's not even one second that is wasted.

The songs may not be great but I could imagine many of them be mediocre in it's raw form (piano/guitar and vocal). And then listening to them completely produced it's amazing what these guys can do. It completely proves the point we are all making to some degree...

i can agree with this and disagree at the same time !!

I cant stand acts like Maroon 5, bland and dull BUT i could totally see a world where you could take one of there "polished" songs and play it raw with just an acoustic and a great singer (like Aretha Franklin or - less tunefully but with real characetr - Iggy Pop) and it could be excellent.

It is true to say that a Hit Record is not about the song. It is about the song and the performer. The sound of the day, the recording itself, is it funny, is the marketing cool, are the band cool etc etc. A hit song is a mixture of many things and every song is diferent. There is no formula - the workshop debate was a waste of time!

And to address the post above - its not that people demand bad music - the reason why acts like Maroon 5 et al sell well is precisely BECAUSE they are not challenging. Not everyone wants challenging music! Or arthouse movies!

[chymer]

you have to record it at 96khz for it to have any chance of being a hit!

[slaves666]

I work with bands with average songs all the time. I usually spend about 2-3 days in pre-prod working on arrangements, and re writing parts so that the "song" makes sense and has a hook. Then while recording vocals, we work on lyrics and melodies, and add harmonies to add flavour. I'm not saying they will all be hits, but every band walks out with much better songs.

[zboy2854]

This discussion reminded me of a great example of a hit that was all about the production, and not the song itself, "Toxic" by Britney Spears. If you tried to play the song on piano or guitar, there's almost nothing there, but damn if the production and parts aren't incredible and makes the track undeniable.

[superclock]

I think it's funny that people talk about the songwriters and artists who dominate radio as having little or no talent. The reality is that they have an incredible talent that seems to elude the majority of the musician/producer/songwriter population . . . they can write songs that appeal to huge numbers of people. Whether it's out of jealousy, spite or ignorance, to belittle someone else who has something you don't is a very common psychological tactic for self-preservation. I am a sucker for a good hook anyday, no matter the style of music. And good hooks aren't written by marketing departments.

[T_R_S]

I wonder how many "hit" songs will never be heard because of no payola to get them heard.
But on the other hand if you got the right combination nothing can stop a great song from happening.
It's a lot like winning the lottery only your chances are better with a lottery.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

But on the other hand if you got the right combination nothing can stop a great song from happening.

Any Combination of class A substances delivered to the program director will produce a hit....

But seriously, Zep 4 and Graffiti are two of the best records ever recorded. Not one 'Hit' on either of them. What about Metallica Ride the Lighting? Electric Ladyland? You do realize Hendrix technically speaking is a one hit wonder. The Grateful Dead Janis Joplin and Zappa are all one hit wonders??

so your dead wrong brotha. Those bands have at least 10 or 20 songs each that should have been 'Hits'
So there is more to a hit song than the quality of the song. If it's any one thing. It really is the right song at the right time. An of course the right amount of payola to the right person at the right time.

[Fretbored]

Really guys. One full year on this topic. The public sponsors what they like. Simple songs for everyday people, suck or not. Proof of this to me is when I was on my way to pick up a car with another guy. He had the country station on and Trace Atkins "Swing Batter Batter Swing" came on the air. He had never heard it before and instantly loved it. I, on the other hand, was dead set on changing the channel. Nobody twisted his arm. While marketing is important to the success and sustaining of a particular song or artist, nobody twisted Billy Bob's arm to love that country song.

[dreamsongs]

I agree that it's more than the production that makes a hit song. It also has to do who the flavor of the month is and who's performing it.

But going back to the Maroon 5 CD that's fresh in my mind, it amazed me how from song to song there are similarities in production although obviously they are different songs.

For one, they all have a very hooky pre-chorus followed by an even hookier chorus. And then it's off to the bridge without wasting one bar. I have a hard time keeping my songs in that format under 4 min. seriously...

Upon further listen, there are no intros whatsoever to any of those songs, not more than 2 bars at least. And a very tightly produced outro. No instrumental parts at all in the entire CD except on the outro of Kiwi, the 10th track.

They are all songs for people with ADD (attention deficit disorder). They go by very quickly so there's no room for boredom. But I tell you what, they sound good and they are polished and catchy as hell.

I suppose there is much better music out there but they're putting out what the people want to hear on the radio and laughing all the way to the bank.

I think this is the phase we're going thru now so I keep taking notes from CD's like this. We all have bills to pay...

[JP11]

To answer the question....no, I can't produce a hit song.

One thing though, is there always seems to be the notion that unchallenging pop music has to be bad to be popular, and that unchallenging and bad are the same thing.

I think The Beatles, for the quick and easy example of which there are tons through the history of pop music, proved that unchallenging and good are very possible and I think the people
are very alright with that. I know I am.

[dreamsongs]

I also think that the standards for each genre are different too.

People expect every Pop song to be a hit or else why would you even bother writing a Pop song. They would listen to any Jazz tune very differently and appreciate other aspects of the song. Whereas in Pop music, there is a lot of junk.
Not that there isn't junk in every genre of music but we are more exposed to Pop radio.

It is very possible to write a great pop tune that stands the test of time. But for the most part, there's a lot of temporary- let's fill the charts with anything- junk out there.

Obiously and for some of these reasons, Pop has become a dirty word. Compliments to the hundreds of one hit wonders in the past 10 years or so and the bubble gum Pop industry. Hence it's a lot more difficult to impress people with it...

[JP11]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

People expect every Pop song to be a hit or else why would you even bother writing a Pop song.

Right. And you would expect that attitude from some pompous old fart who only listens to the classics or something.

But for the average bloke, pop music is good enough. And so I don't know why (music) people have such a negative attitude. It seems to breed further badness. If you want a hit, it has to be shit!

I believe in the past, even though people like Brian Wilson and Lennon And McCartney and tons of others before and after that period were working in disposable silly pop music for the unwashed idiots, there still was the desire for it to be good. And sure enough, it was!!

Be My Baby is pretty unchallenging, seemingly disposable tripe, but it inspired the mind of Brian Wilson, and lives on and on.

(Bear in mind, I can't produce a hit, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.)

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by JP11

Right. And you would expect that attitude from some pompous old fart who only listens to the classics or something.

But for the average bloke, pop music is good enough. And so I don't know why (music) people have such a negative attitude. It seems to breed further badness. If you want a hit, it has to be shit!

I believe in the past, even though people like Brian Wilson and Lennon And McCartney and tons of others before and after that period were working in disposable silly pop music for the unwashed idiots, there still was the desire for it to be good. And sure enough, it was!!

Be My Baby is pretty unchallenging, seemingly disposable tripe, but it inspired the mind of Brian Wilson, and lives on and on.

(Bear in mind, I can't produce a hit, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.)

I am convinced that the hits from the '70s were better than those of today. The production is probably better today but the songs were better before...

[DJRock]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

But going back to the Maroon 5 CD that's fresh in my mind, it amazed me how from song to song there are similarities in production although obviously they are different songs.

It's interesting to me that you think the production of this record is so similar from song to song when it was produced by three different sets of people. Maybe its the bands style that you're hearing.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

I am convinced that the hits from the '70s were better than those of today. The production is probably better today but the songs were better before...

I won't argue with that if you compare the best of the 70s with the best of now. Productions, too. Maybe not frequency response-wise, but who gives a shit about that? Songwriting, production, originality, and certainly musicianship.

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by DJRock

It's interesting to me that you think the production of this record is so similar from song to song when it was produced by three different sets of people. Maybe its the bands style that you're hearing.

No, what I'm hearing is the similarities in the approach of all the songs. There might be 3 producers but there has to be a style and an approach that defines the record and the band. That's the difference between a bunch of songs and a record.

Even if there was 12 producers for each song they are all working towards the same objective.

At the end of the day, there will be similarities between the components of all songs...

[DJRock]

Originally Posted by dreamsongs

No, what I'm hearing is the similarities in the approach of all the songs. There might be 3 producers but there has to be a style and an approach that defines the record and the band. That's the difference between a bunch of songs and a record.

Having worked on some of the songs I guess I notice the differences in the productions more than the similarities between the tracks that were done by different producers. But I do agree that they follow a certain format in regards to the arrangements of the songs, which is what I was referring to as far as the bands style of writing.

[Jimmi Accardi]

You can fool SOME of the people SOME of the time. Yes, there is a large amount of people who will buy whatever they hear on the radio or see on TV. "It's on the radio; it MUST be good! What do I know if I think it stinks? Maybe I should give it a few more listens until I start to deny my own discernment?"
With ENOUGH money behind it you can make a great song or a crap song a hit. The great song will last and the crap song won't but both will be hits. So what is a hit? I had this conversation with Paul Atkinson and Bruce Lundvall back in 1980 when I was with Columbia records. They wanted our band to include a couple of songs on our 2nd album that were already proven hits in the past. We wanted to do our own songs instead. They said they weren't sure that our songs would be hits. I said "what do you mean by hit?".
Their definition was something that was already a charted hit. Well you couldn't argue with that! But there is a difference between a "Hit" and "Hit Material". You can have a great song with great production and only have 'Hit Material'. You need MONEY and PROMOTION to MAKE it a hit!
Columbia was the one with the money and the power and they were gonna back whatever they thought would be a hit. And by their own definition (above) our song could not be one because it wasn't one ALREADY! (Is this making any sense?).
So I said to them "So since you don't see our song as the hit, you won't back it and you will be proven right... it WON'T be a hit! Not without the backing! And we'll never know if it would've/could've been a hit.
I happen to be one who believes that you CAN make many, many people buy music through mass marketing. I'm not saying everybody, or even most people. But certainly many! I don't think many people actually KNOW what they like. There.. I've said it. So kill me!

[Beardhead]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

haha see, if it only took a mediocre song to be a hit we would all have billboard success don´t you think ???

Who's gonna hear them if you don't have people to put them all over the place (TV, advertisement etc.).

I never said all top hits are masterpieces, I said every hit song has hit elements in their melody/beat/lyrics and most importantly a good structure.

A good structure??? What other structure than the intro-verse-ref-verse-ref-solo-ref-ref-ref-ref-ref is there that fits into 3:30 and that doesn't blow the mind of the standard radio listener? Imho a hit must have structure, but please, something people don't have accomodate to!

I kind of agree with you if we talk about evergreens here, but in my opinion hits as measured in billboard placement are a marketing success.

Claus

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by DJRock

Having worked on some of the songs I guess I notice the differences in the productions more than the similarities between the tracks that were done by different producers. But I do agree that they follow a certain format in regards to the arrangements of the songs, which is what I was referring to as far as the bands style of writing.

That's what I meant...

What work did you do on these songs ?

[dreamsongs]

Originally Posted by punch

You can fool SOME of the people SOME of the time. Yes, there is a large amount of people who will buy whatever they hear on the radio or see on TV. "It's on the radio; it MUST be good! What do I know if I think it stinks? Maybe I should give it a few more listens until I start to deny my own discernment?"
With ENOUGH money behind it you can make a great song or a crap song a hit. The great song will last and the crap song won't but both will be hits. So what is a hit? I had this conversation with Paul Atkinson and Bruce Lundvall back in 1980 when I was with Columbia records. They wanted our band to include a couple of songs on our 2nd album that were already proven hits in the past. We wanted to do our own songs instead. They said they weren't sure that our songs would be hits. I said "what do you mean by hit?".
Their definition was something that was already a charted hit. Well you couldn't argue with that! But their is a difference was between a "Hit" and "Hit Material". You can have a great song with great production and only have 'Hit Material'. You need MONEY and PROMOTION to MAKE it a hit!
Columbia was the one with the money and the power and they were gonna back their whatever they thought would be a hit. And by their own definition (above) our song could not be one because it wasn't one ALREADY! (Is this making any sense?).
So I said to them "So since you don't see our song as the hit, you won't back it and you will be proven right... it WON'T be a hit! Not without the backing! And we'll never know if it would've/could've been a hit.
I happen to be one who believes that you CAN make many, many people buy music through mass marketing. I'm not saying everybody, or even most people. But certainly many! I don't think many people actually KNOW what they like. There.. I've said it. So kill me!

I agree...well said.

Because I have a lot of teenagers around me on a regular basis, my kids and their friends... I know that they gravitate towards anything that gets played on a heavy rotation. If anything is on the radio, it must be good.

Then OTOH, some kids actually are smart enough to search for lesser known local bands to find the gem or different sounding music from what they're being spoon fed.

But for the most part, they end up buying the flavor of the month. But this is an entirely different subject.

Most kids/people don't do what some of us do which is dissect a song to see if it passes the test. They hear the bling and blang and rush off to the store or to i-tunes. In this scenario, yes, they have bought the production and not the song...