does this theory hold water?

[Icey101]

i'll keep this generic ok

so in the 60's there was the start of the super groups, pop rock kicked off and became massive, lots of money flowing around and most bands got ripped by their first record and management contract etc.

i heard somewhere that there was some team of professional song writing guys who kicked off in the 60s, 6 or so, lets call them The Network, who wrote music for groups on the side for a big pay out. They were also connected to session players who could stand in for bands when recording records.

So with all your musical life experiance has anyone here on TB ever written a world wide hit?? How about when you were 17 or 18? how easy would it have been to write then?

ok now for the theory: almost all mega bands in the 60's werent good enough within their own skills to write big hit songs and play their instruments good enough to record music it was all organised via their management via the Network, if the Network deemed it as a good investment.

now think about this, all these now old 60s band members who are in there older age 60s plus, with all their experiance, why cant they still write mega hits even better then they had in the 60s, if they had written all their original hits wouldnt they be even better at music theory after a lifetime of writing? How many of these older rockers have brought out solo albums or comeback albums, that have flopped?...lots? nearly all?

open for dicussion

[stratovani]

I'm no songwriter, but I think it's like anything else - the more you do it, the better you get at it, assuming you have the skill and talent to do it. But it can be a hit-or-miss thing, so a songwriter has to write a lot of bad songs in order to write a good one.

I don't recall hearing anything about the Network back in the day. Sounds to me like one of those shadowy organizations we keep hearing about, like the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission.

[Lonesomedave]

well, there were stables of songwriters who were very good and wrote hits... carol king, neil sadaka, neil diamond etc.

but don't forget the REAL supergroups who came along in the late 60's-the early 70's.... led zep, the who, the beatles (although they spanned the entire 60's from about 63 on), yes, moody blues, humble pie, rush, cream, traffic etc... they did write their own songs and dern good ones they were.

[Internet Police]

Old musicians don't write hits anymore because tastes change over time.

[JohnMCA72]

Writing songs (or any form of artistic creativity) isn't like manufacturing widgets; the machinery doesn't just churn them out on an assembly line indefinitely. How many people ever have even one bona fide "hit" song in them? Fewer than that have a dozen, & even fewer still have 100. Most people can't even write one. Once the tank's empty, it's empty. Be happy you were able to do what you did, & make the most of if while you can, because there's no guarantee it'll last. Even Ted Williams couldn't keep hitting baseballs forever.

[Nev375]

fact one. The older you get, the better you get at songwriting.
fact two. The better the songwriting, the less chance it has of becoming a hit.
fact three. Most hit pop songs are just 3 or 4 chord mindless drivel.

Of course, there are exceptions, but I would conclude that pretty much anyone can write a hit song and your odds of doing so are better when you are young and good looking.

[Faderoktopus]

Originally Posted by Nev375

fact one. The older you get, the better you get at songwriting.
fact two. The better the songwriting, the less chance it has of becoming a hit.
fact three. Most hit pop songs are just 3 or 4 chord mindless drivel.

Of course, there are exceptions, but I would conclude that pretty much anyone can write a hit song and your odds of doing so are better when you are young and good looking.

None of these are facts. Good songwriting, like any other concept based on aesthetics, is in the ears of the beholder.

1: A lot of young people will feel a greater connection to Blink182 than to Bob Dylan, despite the age difference, which for their part makes All the Small Things a better piece of songwriting than Times Are A-changing.

2: In light of the above, the chance of a song becoming a hit depends, at least in part, on how broad of an appeal it has, not on some fictitious concept of objective quality.

3: While studies could be undertaken to determine the average number of chords in very popular songs, terms such as mindless drivel only reflect the preferences of the poster and have no musical relevance.

As for the conclusion, it really doesn't reflect reality, does it? Many musicians struggle all through their lives without ever writing a hit, and some write exceptionally complex and impressive non-hit music at an early age which goes on to gain notoriety with an older audience. This business really is too complex for such broad strokes.

Martin

[Nev375]

Originally Posted by Faderoktopus

None of these are facts. Good songwriting, like any other concept based on aesthetics, is in the ears of the beholder.

1: A lot of young people will feel a greater connection to Blink182 than to Bob Dylan, despite the age difference, which for their part makes All the Small Things a better piece of songwriting than Times Are A-changing.

2: In light of the above, the chance of a song becoming a hit depends, at least in part, on how broad of an appeal it has, not on some fictitious concept of objective quality.

3: While studies could be undertaken to determine the average number of chords in very popular songs, terms such as mindless drivel only reflect the preferences of the poster and have no musical relevance.

As for the conclusion, it really doesn't reflect reality, does it? Many musicians struggle all through their lives without ever writing a hit, and some write exceptionally complex and impressive non-hit music at an early age which goes on to gain notoriety with an older audience. This business really is too complex for such broad strokes.

Martin

1. The quality of music or art is determined by how long it remains relevant, not by sales. In 100 years, I suspect that Bob Dylan's music will still be looked at as how influential and timeless it was. Blink 182... I'm not so sure.

2. You are correct in that the number of chords has no bearing on songwriting quality. That was not the point I was trying to make. But certainly you can see a difference in quality between the songwriting skills of Brett Dennen vs. Rebecca Black? If you can't tell which is the drivel then we are beyond the limits of being able to communicate with one another.

3. My original response was not meant to be taken with 100% seriousness. It was kind of a half-joke. There is still a thread of underlying truth to it which I'm willing to debate. Sorry the humor didn't come across as intended.

[Muttleybass]

I don't think it has anything to do with quality. Look at Queen... Lots of awesome stuff in their later years before Freddie died. Nobody but their true fans seemed to care, though. I think a lot of the true songwriters of the 60s DID keep it up. Look at Neil Young. Led Zeppelin. Neil Diamond.

There are a ton of bands that write amazing music and never get a hit. If lightning strikes and someone does get a hit, that opens the door for people to hear what else you have. So you're lucky if you get a hit, that would lead to more (Kings of Leon, Nickleback). Unfortunately that doesn't always last. An artist has usually spent 10 years writing that first album and has put out all his best stuff. Then he has to do it again within only one year. So you've developed a style, that style has it's time, then people move on. The artist is still doing what they do, but people lose interest.

I think there's so much to music that you can't really nail it down. If you look at what's out there now, it's all about the packaging and image. Part of the problem becomes the media. The music buying public are teenagers who aren't really interested in buying songs from people old enough to be their parents. Image is for the youth, so most of the time older bands don't get marketed unless they have adult appeal. That might mean a change in direction for an artist as he ages (John Melancamp, Bryan Adams). People who were into a type of music back then have move on to something else. Hence the popularity of country. The artist that they loved in the day becomes classic.

Add to that, most bands fall apart after achieving success and the parts are simply not equal to the sum. Plus, the effort doesn't seem to be there. It's tough to have the energy at 60 that they did at 25. Paul McCartney hasn't done anything relevant in years... it's like he retired and phones it in once in a while.

People change as they get older. Artists change direction to stay fresh, or worse, stop putting in the effort, and listeners just change tastes. They don't always wind up on the same page.

Money and power are not good things for an artist.

[DBCrocky]

After a while you just run out of things to say.

[Mayers]

Pop/rock/punk = I don't think we will hear them in 100 years, while classical music is still play today.

People talk about song not music, the lyrics are more important than the back noise so yeah ... that plus the fact that it is your image that sell we end up with a empty shell musicwise.

The problem with music is since 1950 music have become a way to sell an image, a personality and then since the music isn't the most important thing it become more and more simple to the point it is really isn't music anymore. Just a very well polished turd for mass consumerism.

[dvh]

Keep in mind most of this discussion is centred around popular music and the public face that goes along with it, the quantity of which is a measure of "success".

Lot's of formerly notably publicly successful musicians move on to other things, or other kinds of music, or they keep doing what they're doing but it's under the radar.

The Paul McCartney comment is germane. He may not be as revered as he once was, the hits might have dried up, but he's out there doing what he likes and loves and making a living. He probably doesn't worry about the hits anymore (and not because he's filthy rich but, maturity brings a release from the need for fame....)

[dalkowski]

All I know is, the guy who wrote "Na Na, Hey Hey, Kiss Him Goodbye" died last week.

[DBCrocky]

Ugggh

I had a moron for a music teacher in College, he made the argument that "popular music" never lasted, only "classical" music stood the test of time, and therefor the 20th century would only be remembered for 20th century classical music.

Firstly, the term "classical" does not mean music with violins and orchestras, but it means that something has stood the test of time. So saying that only classical music will be remembered is like saying that oranges are orange.

Secondly, before the 20th century, the only way for music to survive was for it to be written down. Very few "popular" artists ever wrote down their music. So it is the music that was scored that is remembered, because we have no idea what the troubadour everyone loved even sounded like or what songs he played.

But, then in the 20th century, we gained the ability to have recordings, and this changed everything. We also had the development of many new instruments.

Musically, the 20th century will be remembered for advances in technology, the emergence of many new genres, and the Beatles.

[Faderoktopus]

To the general discussion I will add that musical longevity is dependant on the process of canonization, not by any inherent and objective qualities. This is not something that can be proven or disproven but is a generally accepted view in the field of musicology.

One example of confusing perceived quality with longevity is the British school that has names of the greatest composers ever etched in the archway at the entrance. There were some fifty (if memory serves) names of composers that the school administration felt strongly would never be forgotten since their music was so great. Now, only a few of those are commonly known, though works by most of them have survived. Surprise! They might have made wonderful music but they were forgotten when put in the shadows of later, more immediately popular masters such as the talented pop-boy Mozart.

After WW2 something funny happened with the study of German music history, Wagner was too hot a topic whereas J.S.Bach was politically neutral, and so we now have a huge amount of historical material on a composer who was otherwise more or less forgotten during the hundred years between his death in 1750 and the performances by Mendelssohn in 1850. I'm not saying this to belittle his work, I truly love Bach's work, but to illustrate that inherent quality is an illusion more than anything.

Originally Posted by Icey101

ok now for the theory: almost all mega bands in the 60's werent good enough within their own skills to write big hit songs and play their instruments good enough to record music it was all organised via their management via the Network, if the Network deemed it as a good investment.

now think about this, all these now old 60s band members who are in there older age 60s plus, with all their experiance, why cant they still write mega hits even better then they had in the 60s, if they had written all their original hits wouldnt they be even better at music theory after a lifetime of writing? How many of these older rockers have brought out solo albums or comeback albums, that have flopped?...lots? nearly all?

open for dicussion

One thing that defined the rock music of the sixties was the move towards an autonomous band who wrote their own music, which was more in line with the dominant cultural value of authenticity, so unless you just plain don't like the Beatles, Led Zep, Stones (after they started recording predominantly originals) and many others then I would say no, your theory doesn't hold. Some of these musicians knew theory, some didn't, but the effort in the songwriting was towards spontaneous, natural songs that were hardly ever theoretically correct. Theory is, and always has been, an afterthought to the actual music being made.

Musical quality is not defined by longevity, nor by airplay time, sales or gross profit. It isn't defined at all, and yet we sometimes completely agree upon it due to a common cultural (and immediate) understanding of genre rules. Which is why I don't suppose anyone on this forum would consider Rebecca Blacks music to be good in any way.

Martin

[gnjpowell]

The Network is still around and thriving today.
Now they usually travel in black helicopters...