So i've been wondering for a while now, while listening to some lesser known bands, and some very popular ones, why is it that band A is so much less known then band B, while A makes better stuff then B. I don't mean subjectively better, I mean, structure, progression, overall feel, it seemed so much better, yet A was in the dust while B called themselves Britney Spears.

So i'd like to know what you guys think. What is in a song that catches the hearts of millions?

At 11/24/06 10:24 AM, MaestroRage wrote: So i've been wondering for a while now, while listening to some lesser known bands, and some very popular ones, why is it that band A is so much less known then band B, while A makes better stuff then B. I don't mean subjectively better, I mean, structure, progression, overall feel, it seemed so much better, yet A was in the dust while B called themselves Britney Spears.

So i'd like to know what you guys think. What is in a song that catches the hearts of millions?

Maestro that's an excellent question, I feel it's a bit of a hard one to answer but I'll through my 2 cents in for what it's worth

Could it be subject matter? I mean for example, If a band chooses to throw some political issues into there works, is this the kind of thing that some people would take offence to? or perhaps is it the kind of thing that makes people stand up and take notice of the band?

Could it be due to radio exposure?

some bands gain popularity by simply having more air play and a lot of listeners to such radio shows don't really know much else other than what's thrust in front of them via the airwaves

At 11/24/06 10:32 AM, B0UNC3 wrote: Publicity, the thing that attracts listeners in the first place (Commercials and so on).
The more publicity the more poeple will get interested. and maybe B gets alot of more publicity than A.

absolutely agree, publicity is a very important factor. You could be writing the best music in the world, but without some form of promotion it'll will never get any further than your bedroom or sharing it with friends. It seems a shame really, to have to spend just as much time whoring yourself out to people and promoting yourself as writing music, but it's definately a necessary evil. t
You ask any music industry guru about wha you need to' get heard' and they will say, "networking, connections and blatant self-promotion". Thank god for indie record labels is what I say, without them there would be no-one fighting for the little guy.

That is all true, and not to mention that some artists/bands like to actually keep a low profile and maintain a certain level of obscurity.

In many cases, signing to big labels and having your publicity taken care of by others obstructs artistical freedom. The Britneys tend to give that a lower priority than the Radioheads. Hence the term "selling out".

Success
Su 14/28

Gaseous at room temperature. Highly reactive with ionic compounds such as Dedication (De) and Productivity (Pro).

So publicity is clearly the dominant voice here, however surely there must be something more then that. I mean does that mean anybody who has as much publicity as Britney Spears will have as much success?

Britney Spears makes a lot... I mean a LOT of softcore pornographic "music" videos, and her songs are the oversung generic love songs. However it seems that this generic feel is what sells again and again. So sex + generic = $millions?

I mean after all, thats how generic becomes generic, because it works, it is overused, and because it is overused, it is generic.

As well as this could it not be affiliated with the core of society? I mean if everybody absolutely thrived off say heavy metal, then bands who play heavy metal are going to be at the places where currently bands like Britney Spears are. So we can conclude that the masses dictate who gets popular (duh Maestro... duh...).

Following that train of thought does large levels of publicity change the masses? Is it possible to say pump out a bands material so much that the masses actually reform to it?

so many questions...

At 11/24/06 02:53 PM, MaestroRage wrote:

so many questions...

I got another one for you...

- What is commercial?

We´ve discussed that in class this thursday, and a few really interesting and valid opinions were aired.

And obviously "commercial" and "success" in many cases (not all, of course) go hand in hand, but why do you think a song feels commercial? And what is it that makes it so successfull (promotion already mentioned)? When does a musical concept/sound turn "commercial"?

At 11/24/06 03:40 PM, Deflektor76 wrote:

At 11/24/06 03:36 PM, Rucklo wrote:
I got another one for you...

- What is commercial?

Woah. Quote colours changed.

Anyway, I personally define commercial music anything that is made for the generation of revenue and not for the sake of music as an art.

Generically speaking, 9 out of 10 'artists' that do nothing but sing while everyone else does the music are commercial artists - Their agents use the singers names to create interest and hire in whatever session musicians and compers they can to create very high-budget music.

So Khuskan if somebody makes a commercial sounding song, without the intention of selling it, are you saying that it's not commercial?

1 .Lack of TRUE originality (adhering to standards of scale, tones, genres) giving safe familiarity to a piece of music. The more far out something is, the less it will be appreciated.

2. Skills and productivity at producing something that sounds good and is not much longer than 4 minutes 30 seconds.

3.. Publicity, Publicity, Publicity. This hype to claim what is essentially, a normal, nice piece of music is in fact, revolutionary and the next big thing

4. At least one person in the band, must be "good looking", usually the lead singer.

=

5. The appeal to the teenage market. Teenagers generally have a small range of tastes in music, in some cases down to just one band or genre. THAT is the element of success.

At 11/24/06 07:54 PM, B0UNC3 wrote: Which would clarify the fact that sex does sell, well not sex as in SEX but mild (or sometimes extreme)nudity and stuff like that.

Imagine britney spears marketing success if she wight about 170 kg's......

jajajaja.....But could you say the same for Oprah... :o

At 11/24/06 09:18 PM, Feral-Fox wrote:

At 11/24/06 07:54 PM, B0UNC3 wrote: Which would clarify the fact that sex does sell, well not sex as in SEX but mild (or sometimes extreme)nudity and stuff like that.

Imagine britney spears marketing success if she wight about 170 kg's......

jajajaja.....But could you say the same for Oprah... :o

Oprah winfrey? your kidding right

Unless you meant to say Opera!

Acually not kidding......

Don't suck.

Oh, wait, I don't want Synteza on my ass again.

At 11/24/06 10:33 PM, Erkie wrote: Oh, wait, I don't want Synteza on my ass again.

I think you do!

Take a look at some primary NG cases we all know, including PX9. It's not special or revolutionary, but he has more downloads on his lowest song than most people can accumulate. It all has the right appeal to be popular. Big question is why? Somehow he made it work.

but see in PX9's case, he has major publicity every day. I mean it's ten fold better then the top 5 because

1) it never changes
2) it PLAYS again and again and again
3) it appeals to the masses

so point 3 and publicity is clearly the major criteria for success, however what is it that appeals to the masses. Public relations?

I mean of oprah made an album you can BET it's going to sell by the truckloads, because of her reputation amongst people.

I think the "Sex Sells" issue dictates that part pretty heavily!

like it's been said before, a hot female vocalist will sell shedloads, and if it's a band with a physically attractive member, (lead singer perhaps) then that's probably more than enough to guarantee a lot of sales

all these points have been made before and I agree with those points and think that they are still valid to the new question you ask! :)

I think on Newgrounds publicity must have been much easier to gain when the AP was first created and there weren't many talented artists around. Nowadays there are so many people who are very talented and competetive that it's difficult for a single person to gain major publicity.

Boobies.

Much of what this world does will be forgotten. The buildings made, the presidents in office, the wars at hand, and much more will become much like dust. These items that are lost can take time to not be remembered, or they disappear instantly, much like musical genres fade in and out. What about what truly makes a quality song or band? There's sex, promotion, and the whatnot that tend to rule over everything, but a song made for the people of today is what takes the cake, along with time and effort put in; even though what is usually made hogs attention for the meantime.
Much of society knows of Beethoven and Mozart in one way or another. These guys weren't much of prom kings or much of anything else but musicians. What set these fellows apart is that that served to appeal to the people of the times. From these artists came such great musicianship, and that's what people wanted at the time. Or take the Beetles, for example. It's pretty easy to say that this crew really cared for what they did. And look how much they were smiled upon! It's not the bad band that got promoted back in these days, but the good ones who wanted something for everyone to listen and love.
Of course, these times have undertaken a great metamorphosis by large steps everyday. The porn industry has grown so much with the use of computers, where millions, maybe even billions of people can be entertained with good or bad. Society has taken giant leaps towards other things, quality doesn't really matter as much. As long as it works for YOU, it's okay. What happens next is a split that divides what is so much better compared to what stays the same, what doesn't change, and if it changes, it's bad. Humans HATE change when it's not in our favor. So why listen to music that's good, but just doesn't appeal now?
In short, it's the long run that comes over the short run in time. The short run is easier, but like it was made, it's easily demolished and left behind. Things that take longer to build usually take longer to destroy, much like the Audio and Flash Portals here. If there is to be anything meaningful in music, it needs to be treated like an art of solid gold, and not being recycled like generic plastic.

┼ImperfectDisciple┼

♫♪♫♪♫♪&#9 835;♪♫♪♫♪&#9835 ;♪♫♪♫♪♫&# 9834;♫♪♫♪♫&#983 4;♫♪♫♪♫♪& #9835;♪♫♪♫♪&#98 35;♪♫♪♫♪♫ ♪♫♪♫♪♫&#9 834;♫♪♫♪♫&#9834 ;♫♪♫♪♫♪&# 9835;♪♫♪♫♪

At 11/24/06 07:07 PM, MaestroRage wrote: So Khuskan if somebody makes a commercial sounding song, without the intention of selling it, are you saying that it's not commercial?

No, because most comercial songs arn't 'made'; they're 'produced.'.

The producer spends money going around looking for various parts to put the song together, i.e. they pay somebody to write it, loads of people to perform in it then give it to whatever vocalist they represent and use their name to sell it on.

Don't get me wrong, being a producer is probably the best job in the world. I want it.

the masses like simple music...every musician knows this
the more sucessful you wanna be,the less complicated your music should be

At 11/25/06 06:49 PM, ImperfectDisciple wrote: Much of what this world does will be forgotten. The buildings made, the presidents in office, the wars at hand, and much more will become much like dust. These items that are lost can take time to not be remembered, or they disappear instantly, much like musical genres fade in and out. What about what truly makes a quality song or band?

The eventual "fall and destruction of humanity" is a truth, but how long it prospers is based on how well that species is.

but a song made for the people of today is what takes the cake, along with time and effort put in

Making a song for people no longer makes it your music. All forms of art that are being copied today because "this modern age sucks and the only good age was the one before us" is a contradiction and loophole in logic: "What was before us" is gone because it didn't make it, for one reason or the other. It's gone, get over it.

Much of society knows of Beethoven and Mozart in one way or another. These guys weren't much of prom kings or much of anything else but musicians. What set these fellows apart is that that served to appeal to the people of the times.

I don't honestly know much about them, but whether or not they championed the people is not relevant to the effect of their music on people; direct emotional value.

By those standards, the demand for recycled teen bop bands, emos, and hip hop stars was actually created by other industries who started trends; merely convincing the people it's what the want, which leads to the acceptance of braindead intellectuality and emptiness.

In short, it's the long run that comes over the short run in time. The short run is easier, but like it was made, it's easily demolished and left behind. Things that take longer to build usually take longer to destroy, much like the Audio and Flash Portals here. If there is to be anything meaningful in music, it needs to be treated like an art of solid gold, and not being recycled like generic plastic.

I have to agree, just "the people" that threw me off.

The idea is to do what you want, it'll stick later.

There's no such thing as collectivity or success through power.

At 11/27/06 03:34 AM, xXDathDalerXx wrote: the masses like simple music...

Conformity is a BIG no no. Shame.

At 11/27/06 03:52 AM, Erkie wrote:

Much of society knows of Beethoven and Mozart in one way or another. These guys weren't much of prom kings or much of anything else but musicians. What set these fellows apart is that that served to appeal to the people of the times.

I don't honestly know much about them, but whether or not they championed the people is not relevant to the effect of their music on people; direct emotional value.

Mozart didn't "champion the people": he was a musical genius at the time, but the poor bugger was born into poverty, and died penniless at 30-something. It just so happened he wrote most of his music for nobility and royalty across Europe, so he earned a little bit more than the average musical prodigy. So indeed Erkie you are correct: it was his music that people liked, rather than he himself.
However, his name must have become well-known to receive so much praise. Again, his music got him where he was, not a producer who wrote stuff for him.

Speaking of Mozart, he was by the time he was active, a real rebel when it came to producing music. He broke the (musical) rules, and some of the things he wrote he had to re-write, because the audience didn´t approve of it.

If you wish, you could compare him with (by their "popular era") Marilyn Manson, Nirvana, Elvis Presly and other "chocking" artists... Time makes them harmless and "classic" instead of daring and dangerous...

At 11/27/06 06:30 AM, Rucklo wrote:

If you wish, you could compare him with (by their "popular era") Marilyn Manson, Nirvana, Elvis Presly and other "chocking" artists... Time makes them harmless and "classic" instead of daring and dangerous...

interesting.... but marilyn manson is just gross