What's the difference between a great song and a hit song?

[colcifer]

I have no clue.

A few songs I'm curious about though:

1. Cats Down Under The Stars by Jerry Garcia. Right now I'm listening to the live version from September '89 and loving it but I know if it were released now it would go nowhere. I know that the length, interesting lyrics, dynamics, and Jerry-vibe would not be welcome in today's market but I'm struggling to comprehend the essence of what renders this truly great song commercialy inviable.

2. Saving My Heart by Yes. This is from Union and is a tad poppy but still wouldn't sell today. For this one I can't think of a reason why though. It's under five minutes in length, has simple lyrics, a nice guitar solo, and moderate compression.

3. Purple Rain by Prince. This one of course was beyond huge when it came out but would only do okay at best in today's market.

Why?

I have a hunch there's one trait either possessed or missing by/from these songs that makes the difference but I can't figure out what.

Any ideas?

thanks,
c

[nerfbass]

My guess would be that it's because Payola is alive and well in the entertainment industry.

[colcifer]

So any song can be a hit so long as it gets played a certain amount of times on the radio?

[two fingers]

Originally Posted by colcifer

So any song can be a hit so long as it gets played a certain amount of times on the radio?

Yes.

[Greevus]

Coca-cola proved advertising worked aeons ago. McDeath, I mean McDonald's proves it today. You can sell crap. A truly "great song" is gonna touch your spirit for a really long time. A "hit" is going to be trendy.

[electracoyote]

Hype and promotion. Millions of songs you might think are "great" will never see the light of day beyond your CD collection because they got passed over in the selection process by the hype and promotion powers that be.

There's only so much room on the charts, and only so many songs you can squeeze into heavy rotation on mainstream media outlets.

Lately I have been listening to XM/Sirius Channel 59 "Underground Garage." Some of the coolest power pop you've never heard, and never will unless you tune in. Lots of great music flies under the radar and you have to be clever and determined to unearth it.

[Thunderthumbs73]

The difference between a great song and a hit song? Well, a hit song can certainly... no make that HAS TO BE defined exclusively by number of sales, positions on the charts, etc.... and other quantifiables/measurables. What is a "great" song has nothing to do with number of sales, positions on charts, etc...

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by two fingers

Yes.

not entirely true. i've seen some big money stiffs go down in my day. however, you have zero chance of a hit record without spreading the love monetarily.

it's funny...on the devo forum, there's been talk about how radio won't play their single "fresh." their new album is on warner brothers, and i said how wb has deep pockets and should pay programmers to play it. i got a reply from devo, inc., whom i think is their bassist jerry casale, and it said, "paying for radio airplay is called payola and is HIGHLY illegal." i replied, "yeah, ok, i gotcha...wink wink." then i mentioned how warner brothers just got fined $5 million in new york a couple years ago when spitzer went after payola. every major record company got hit with huge fines except emi, and they're still under investigation...they just can't prove it.

how to make a million dollars in the music industry: start with $2 million.

[desertsolace]

I think where the difference between a hit and a great song is blurred is when a hit from the past becomes part of your past. It is hard not to think of a song that is part of you not being great.
There's also the phenomenon of guilty pleasures: songs that do it for you and you can't explain it based on musicality. Perhaps the difference I'm most aware of is great pop songs and great compositions... Sometimes a song is both and then it truly is great.

On musician sites we like to talk about great compositions because we can explain why they're great and it affirms our understanding of musicality (okay that's a little simplistic)... But often, for me... many of the songs that impacted me most may not have had the greatest musicality.

[Thunderthumbs73]

Originally Posted by desertsolace

I think where the difference between a hit and a great song is blurred is when a hit from the past becomes part of your past.

This would seem logical, and almost a given. A hit song that became part of your past would be one that you would most likely think of as "great".

"Achey-Breakey Heart", while an undoubtedly "hit" song, is one I've never cared for, or thought was "great". I've never listened to that song enough that it is part of my past or have any reason to remember or recall.

[otis_thick]

It kind of depends what you mean by great......

IMHO a GREAT song Lasts over time and is played on the airways regularly 10-20-40 or more years after its release and still sells even if in compilation form while a HIT is only popular 6 months to a year and is never heard of again which is most of any given years Top 100. Some examples of great songs that were also hits...you can hear Gordon Lightfoot's Edmond Fitzgerald being played somewhere everyday since its release in the 70's, Beatles Songs Elton John Good-by Yellow Brick Road Edgar Winter Frankenstein Gary Wright Dream Weaver Eagles Hotel Cali, Isley Brothers Its Your Thing or Shout, Most Motown Hits, Led Zeppelin Kashmir, Ohio Players Fire, O'jays For the Love of Money, Alone Again (naturally), The Sailors Say (Brandi), Suck In the Middle With You, Steely Dan Rikki Don't lose that number, MJ & Quincy Jones productions, Stone Honky Tonk Woman etc There are also songs that personally resonate with the listener that THEY find to be a great song one example for me is Harry Chipans's W.O.L.D to me its a great song that I can listen to at any time from now on but YOU may bot find it great

[otis_thick]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

not entirely true. I've seen some big money stiffs go down in my day. however, you have zero chance of a hit record without spreading the love monetarily.

it's funny...on the devo forum, there's been talk about how radio won't play their single "fresh." their new album is on warner brothers, and i said how wb has deep pockets and should pay programmers to play it. i got a reply from devo, inc., whom i think is their bassist jerry casale, and it said, "paying for radio airplay is called payola and is HIGHLY illegal." i replied, "yeah, ok, i gotcha...wink wink." then i mentioned how warner brothers just got fined $5 million in new york a couple years ago when spitzer went after payola. every major record company got hit with huge fines except emi, and they're still under investigation...they just can't prove it.

how to make a million dollars in the music industry: start with $2 million.

Sony was fined about 10 mil. and I heard a rep say that was drop compared to promotion budget for the company...look at how Disney and others are allowed to own their own stations those are clear monopolies...I know how most of you think of Don Henley as being an A@# Hole but he was completely correct and we are losing the war...I don't know if you recall any of the hearings but that year Gladys Knight the O'jays and Lionel Richie had NEW albums that not only would the powers not let them be played on ANY of the monopoly own stations--Via com would not let them be sold in stores so they would not compete with the new stable of artists...That's when they had to sell there product BY mail with TV commercials That included Elton John and Prince (see Wiki or search for Red line records) A producer for NBA and ESPN asked me to produce some new "bass" music for highlight reels because he was tired of the 3 or 4 discs that he had...and to give me a break...he informed the powers that he was contracting me to produce some new music and it was all leagal...they wrote him back and said they only wanted ABC\Disney artists and sent 3 cases of their artist...the ESPY awards for best music for Sports production ONLY features ABC\Disney artists ABC\Disney own ESPN BTW

[bassteban]

music=beauty
music business=spawn of the devil

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by otis_thick

Sony was fined about 10 mil. and I heard a rep say that was drop compared to promotion budget for the company...look at how Disney and others are allowed to own their own stations those are clear monopolies...I know how most of you think of Don Henley as being an A@# Hole but he was completely correct and we are losing the war...I don't know if you recall any of the hearings but that year Gladys Knight the O'jays and Lionel Richie had NEW albums that not only would the powers not let them be played on ANY of the monopoly own stations--Via com would not let them be sold in stores so they would not compete with the new stable of artists...That's when they had to sell there product BY mail with TV commercials That included Elton John and Prince (see Wiki or search for Red line records) A producer for NBA and ESPN asked me to produce some new "bass" music for highlight reels because he was tired of the 3 or 4 discs that he had...and to give me a break...he informed the powers that he was contracting me to produce some new music and it was all leagal...they wrote him back and said they only wanted ABC\Disney artists and sent 3 cases of their artist...the ESPY awards for best music for Sports production ONLY features ABC\Disney artists ABC\Disney own ESPN BTW

i believe every single word of that. it's a damn pathetic situation. and that's why i don't feel the least bit bad when i download music from major record companies for free. the artists will never see a dime of that money anyway thanks to creative accounting, and any little shiv i can stick in the side of "The Man (TM)" i'm quite happy to do so.

[colcifer]

Originally Posted by two fingers

Yes.

Then why are record companies putting out all this crap? If it all comes out to promotion, why don't they make better music popular? Why make new music at all; they could just go through their catalogs and re-release anything.

It seems to me if this is right there would be a whole lot less compression and auto-tune.

[otis_thick]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

i believe every single word of that. it's a damn pathetic situation. and that's why i don't feel the least bit bad when i download music from major record companies for free. the artists will never see a dime of that money anyway thanks to creative accounting, and any little shiv i can stick in the side of "The Man (TM)" i'm quite happy to do so.

And to boot the Monopolies are running out the locally owned stations by undercutting the advertising prices because they have the deeeeeep pockets of the CORP behind them and starve out the locals ....for you US listeners look at how many of your formally local radio stations have been turned into a clear channel Immiis or Dysney ect stations...resistance is futile.... and they tend to own several in each market....if you are an unsigned independant artist, just try and get your music on air or sold at a company music outlet store...Thats why you are seeing less and less Youtube original videos or songs by classic or new artists except the crap that don't spend any money on that they want you to listen too..... thanx BMG, Itunes. yahoo music.....

[fractiouslowend]

Originally Posted by colcifer

Then why are record companies putting out all this crap? If it all comes out to promotion, why don't they make better music popular? Why make new music at all; they could just go through their catalogs and re-release anything.

It seems to me if this is right there would be a whole lot less compression and auto-tune.

Don't know how true this is, but it's just a trend i've noticed over the last few years

i think the reason major label music has gotten so bad over the last decade or so, is that record companies have realised it's a hell of a lot cheaper to release this kind of music.

for example, compare lady gaga to pantera.
to make a lady gaga album, all you need is a PC with some software like reason / pro tools, that sort of thing, and a mic to record vocals.
to make a pantera album, you're gonna need drums, guitars, basses, a whole bunch of mic's and pre amps / compressors effects pedals, speaker cabinets and the studio time to get all the parts recorded right. this is a hell of a lot more effort (money) to record

i think the is also the reason for the huge influx of indie-ish bands in the last few years. It's still got that rock sort of sound, but indie is SUPPOSED to sound bad, so you can use cheap instruments and crappy production

[DenisKrestsov]

A great song is personal, a hit song is corporate.

[otis_thick]

Originally Posted by colcifer

Then why are record companies putting out all this crap? If it all comes out to promotion, why don't they make better music popular? Why make new music at all; they could just go through their catalogs and re-release anything.

It seems to me if this is right there would be a whole lot less compression and auto-tune.

In the past for example a MJ Quincy Jones produced album cost 20-30 million to produce...you had top notch musicians writers and producers studios that also had to be paid BUT they knew it took talent all the way around to really make a HIT Elvis is famous world over but he had very few if any later real hits he was going off of his name and past to keep a bas perspective Louis Johnson was making up wards of 10,000
dollars a week for his session work back then... Now all it takes is to say a certain producer or artists collaboration you pay the artist lets say 5 million and the producer 12 million thats 17 that's paid out and the company makes 150 million SEE TLC and how they were bankrupt with a number ONE album..SEE Backstreet boys (I don't know why) Rap artist have figured out a new game...I won't sat his\her name but one took all of his drug money and bought all of his own records and showed he sold 300.000 of his own independently produced record the record company gave him a 300,000,000
million dolor contract to bring in NEW artist because he MUST be a great producer to sell 300,000 units in a month on his own ...remember all he did was clean his drug money by buying his own records from the pressing company that had bar code records. you pay a kid out of high school or a drop out 20 million dollars to make a record they will dress do whatever you say while you rake in 100s of millions sooo you push that one person of name again Stephanie Germanatti has talent but she had to dress and act as she was told to FIT in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM

Companies like dealing\controlling one person at a time instead of a group unless they created the gtoup...and the public will listen to what ever they are told is IN BUT there is hope All..the newest gen 10-19 year olds are discovering the old ways of music with latest upsurge of remember the 70s and eightys...kook up some 70s 80s classics and read some of the comments my 15 year old niece asked me to find her some Jimmy Hendrix because she saw a doc at school and she is now making mix Cd's for my brother and friends and he is in his 50s and she is putting together winners so there may be hope for us that still know how and can still do it (that includes everything thanx Viagra!)

[fractiouslowend]

Originally Posted by otis_thick

In the past for example a MJ Quincy Jones produced album cost 20-30 milliion to produce...you had top notch musicians writers and producers studios that also had to be paid BUT they knew it took talent all the way around to really make a HIT Elvis is famaous woorld over but he had very few if any later real hits he was going off of his name and past to keep a bas perspective Louis Jphnson was making upwards of 10,000
dollars a week for his session work back then... Now all it takes is to say a certain producer or artists collaberation you pay the artist lets say 5 million and the producer 12 million thats 17 that's paid out and the company makes 150 million SEE TLC and how they were bankrupt with a numerber ONE album..SEE Backstreet boys (I don't know why) Rap artist have figured out a new game...I won't sat his\her name but one toook all of his drug money and baught all of his own records and showed he sold 300.000 of his own independantly produced record the record company gave him a 300,000,000
million dolor contract to bring in NEW artist because he MUST be a great producer to sell 300,000 units in a month on his own ...remember all he did was clean his drug money by buying his own records from the pressing company that had barcode records. you pay a kid out of highschool or a drop out 20 million dollars to make a record they will dress doo whatever you say while you rake in 100s of millions sooo you push that one person of name again Stephnie Germanatti has talent but she had to dress and act as shr was told to FIT in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM

Companies like dealing\controlling one persom at a time instead of a group unless they created the gtoup...and the public will listen to what ever they are told is IN BUT there is hope All..the newest gen 10-19 year olds are discovering the old ways of music with latest upserge of remember the 79s and eightys...kook up some 70s 80s classics and read some of the comments my 15 year old niece asked me to find her some Jimmy Hendrix because she saw a doc at school and she is now making mix CDs for my brother and friends and he is in his 50s and she is putting together winners so there may be hope for us that still know how and can still do it (that includes everything thanx Viagra!)

the record company gave him three hundred trillion dollars!
also, look up a thing called spell check :P