Make of this what you will…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9qcgqI3b8U
It’s nothing if not eye-opening!
3 Likes
Cool stuff. I saw Eyal Levi on CreativeLive maybe a year ago, “how to record metal drums” or something like that. Very interesting viewpoints by Chris on how to write songs.
For some reason I have been listening to early B52’s and early Rush this week. I go through these musical reflection periods, the “classics” that resonate with me. Great songs IMO, but what Chris says about songwriting is completely opposed to what those artists did. He seems very focused on “pop” music, and instant gratification songwriting. I understand this is very common in the music industry and music business these days, but one thing the old record company model did seem to encourage was quality in artistry (until deadlines for “hit” songs came up). I’d guess I spend more than 70% of my music listening time on the old stuff that I enjoy and admire. They just don’t do much great stuff any more. In the mid 70’s and early 80’s, probably early 90’s too (grunge) there were great albums coming out every month of the year. At least from the Rock and Hard Rock genre perspectives. It’s rare that I hear anything Rock oriented these days that I really like.
One thing to consider for any artist is whether their songs will sound classic decades from now, or will they make a quick buck and then be forgotten. As Chris says, pop music like Ke$ha and Katy Perry already sound “dated”. I tend to like things that stand the test of time.
I did happen to hear this song on the radio the other day, and instantly loved it. To me, it was a “hit”, and of course it was being played on the radio because it was the best song off the album. I listened to other cuts on the album (thinking I was in love with this new band) and was disappointed that I didn’t really care for any of them. They were okay, I suppose, but they didn’t grab me. What was compelling about this one song by this artist? Was it the songwriting? The performance? The production? The “vibe”? The video was pretty interesting too, but I only saw that after hearing the audio in the car on the radio.
1 Like
Another “to do” list video. Thanks!
I like the tune, very retro vibe to it, with a little bit of the Monkees “Not Your Stepping Stone” going on in the background vocals, and a 60’s fuzztone on the guitar. Fun to listen to, but I don’t think it would cut it in the arena the podcast is talking about, but in reality, who cares about truly popular music anyway.
The point to me has always been to express your own personality through what you write. This guy seemingly spits out a thousand blurbs like buying lottery scratchoffs and hopes a few of them hit. Of course, his odds go up dramatically as his recognition rises, and it sounds like fun if you get the connections and the chance.
The question becomes, at least to us mere mortals, is how important it is to write something that holds up to people with 8 second attention spans. Of course, if you’re Katy Perry, and the record company is threatening to throw you out of a plane if the next record bombs, it’s a different story.
1 Like
I agree with pretty much all of what he said. My songwriting philosophy is virtually identical to his.
That brings up an interesting thought. Why does it sound dated and really, what DOESN’T sound dated a few years down the road?
I think it’s a personal preference thing - I personally can’t think of a recorded song that is truly “timeless”.
1 Like
The album Montrose - Montrose does it for me, also virtually any Led Zep Album from II onwards, but I don’t think it’s about the songs in particular, it’s more about the production.
1 Like
I hear ya @AJ113. I guess upon thinking a bit more, there’s definitely a line that can be drawn more clearly than others with respect to songwriting and production.
There are songs that are fixtures in the contemporary music lexicon - if you’ve been in a band, you’ve probably played them. There are those like Hallelujah and Eleanor Rigby (and Radioactive seems to be heading there) that have been covered by so many artists. Those seem to be, if I interpret Chris correctly, the songs that don’t get “dated”. They seem to be able to be adapted to a variety of productions and still stand up over time.
The “dated” songs that I think he’s alluding to are the ones that can’t be easily extricated from their initially recorded production. They’re tied to the bells & whistles and without that window dressing, they are extremely difficult to port to a new artist/genre/production.
Dunno - just passing brain farts while the stew simmers on the stove…
I have been thinking a bit more about this, and maybe don’t have any answers, but I agree that there is a lot of personal preference that goes into it. On RR a few years ago, I think we had a thread about the psychology of why people like certain music, and continue to like the same music years later. I had read some scientific research about it, and had posted that IIRC. Humans are more susceptible to developing musical “taste” in our teen and young adult years. And when certain songs become popular with our friends or in culture or have special meaning for us, it’s a bias that we think that music is really good. Sometimes these things even become anthems and get played at sporting events etc; I know I have heard “We Will Rock You” and a few other iconic tunes played at events in recent history. And that was recorded ~40 years ago.
I also think that our brain sees these songs and events as “timeless” in a way, from a personal standpoint. Of course our rational mind can think of what year and how old we were when we first heard or liked the song, but the irrational (unconscious) doesn’t care about time, and if we’re listening for pleasure and not over-analyzing we could be in that place of “flow”.
I am very interested in the timeline of music releases, and keep up with that and know about what years most records came out and how popular they got. At least the ones I know and like, or that had impact in some social way. However, I’m able to keep that knowledge in one frame, as well as the production gear and techniques of whatever era it was, and just let that inform my ears (brain) of what I’m hearing and why, and then listen from a place of “is the music good and what is the vibe?” I don’t know that I can explain it any better than that. I’m very conscious of the production, especially as it relates to this song history/timeline aspect, but I don’t think of it as “dated” but simply history. The Civil War isn’t “dated” even though it happened ~ a century and a half ago. It happened when it happened, and could only have happened when it happened. Oh boy, now I’m really rambling. 
But the issues of the Civil War are still with us today, in some ways (i.e. racism). So even history can be ‘current’, if we’re willing to learn from it.
Another aspect to me is this idea of “trendiness”. Todd Rundgren once made a statement that music critics judge music on its trendiness, and not on its intrinsic value. I have read a lot of comments on the forum(s) about the “modern sound” and the ITB sound or whatever. That’s trendiness IMO. If that’s what you and the artist want, and especially if it’s what the market wants ($), then it’s fine. However, there are these Vintage styles that come back into fashion too. Just like clothes or hairstyles I guess. Some alt/indie bands lean toward psychedelic or punk styles that are quite old in regard to modern (whatever that means). And they have an audience and sell records. I think sometimes this happens as young people discover old music, or they feel that a lot of contemporary music is ‘crap’ and look for something better. That band The Orwells that I posted has that “retro” sound to me, if not so much in that song I posted, some of their other songs I listened to. I have also listened to many non-mainstream groups that released music in the last 5-10 years that are saturated in reverb. It doesn’t bother me. I don’t judge it as “old sounding” because they use lots of reverb. I think it’s just a choice, a preference, and there’s nothing wrong or dated about it. Some people like to drive retro/vintage cars, or get art-deco furnishings or retro clothes; and they think it’s cool.
1 Like
Ramble On Stan, Ramble On…
2 Likes
I hold that view about music. I tend to think our songs were better back in the day. But if you start listing to a lot of the hit lyrics of the 60’s and 70’s (using a statistically correct selection of hit songs) I bet - on average - they’re about as intelligent as what the hit making machines churn out these days. The basic question this view raises about song writing, production choices (use of instruments, recording and mixing techniques etc) in my mind is for who are doing it all? For yourself, your age group? Maybe even for those enlightened beings of later generations that recognise the infinite wisdom of your teen years as being superior to whatever came after? :beerbang: I really don’t give a shit about this kind of song writing but it’s nothing new.
1 Like
Good point. I look at it as extremes at the ends of continuum. One of these is “artistic integrity” vs. “commercial sellout”. I don’t mean that in a judgemental way, just that some people have the goal to sell lots of records and that’s what they’re going to produce. Most things probably fall in between on the continuum. By artistic integrity I mean that the artist makes the music that they want to make, what comes from their heart and speaks to their soul, and whether anybody likes it or buys it or not, they feel good about their art. I don’t mean it in the sense of being snooty or pretentious, only that someone is striving for “authenticity”. A dance-pop song could be authentic if that’s how the artist felt and performed, and if that was their intention (motivation and intention are what I’m getting at here), regardless of sales and accolades.
Another continuum might be emotion vs. thoughtful, emotion eliciting strong feelings, and thoughtful promoting a state of mind about a certain issue. Again, most things probably fall in between, and I’d guess that music is mostly emotional (passion) for a lot of people - especially the record-buying public. The hit songs that we might categorize as less intelligent lyrics may have that feel-good vibe and resonant message that makes people want to dance or cry. That’s why I tend to think emotion is the more driving force in music.
I mentioned in a previous post that I have been listening to early B-52’s and early Rush recently. Kind of odd combination maybe in that B-52’s are very unusual and eccentric, but there is some cool vibe and mystery in their songs that appeals to me. On the other hand, Rush typically has an interesting message in their songs, or exploring some realm of consciousness. More of the “mental” Rock end of the spectrum.
These may also say something about my personality. (Psst: I’m complex)
I frequently experienced this in the old days, and even more recently, that a cool band would come out that I would really dig, it could have been their 1st or 2nd album or both. Sometimes more. Then things would change and I wouldn’t like their music any more. As they got more popular there was pressure from the record company (more hits, more money) or fans (gimme what I want) to conform to a certain image. Or it could be the pressures of success that changed them. There are exceptions to this (those that stayed true to themselves despite the pressure), but I certainly saw a pattern emerge. Some people might call it “evolving”, and I certainly think artists should (and be allowed to) grow. But it all comes back to motivation and intention. In other words, being human. 
1 Like
I really enjoyed this podcast. Interesting insights into what it’s like to be a professional hit songwriter. I’m very interested in learning how to write a excellent pop song, not because it’s what I want all of my songs to sound like, but because I think it’s important to have some songs that catch people’s attention right away. Once you have their attention, they’re more willing to give your other songs a chance, even if they aren’t as immediately catchy. It’s common for me to discover an artist via one of their catchy singles, and go on to listen to more of the music to discover that one of their less popular songs is actually my favorite. But I’d have never discovered it unless they’d hooked me first.
3 Likes