The world doesn’t need more hit pop songs
After a few months away from blogging (I’ve been moving to a new job, trying to buy a house, and various other exciting things including recording a third solo album) I’m finally both inspired and able to write something new.
2013 is going to start with me expressing an opinion – Hit songs Deconstructed is a pointless waste of webspace.
Not because the song analysis on the site is inaccurate; not because they say anything that isn’t true; not because they give bad advice. I dislike the site because it’s geared towards writing top 40 pop songs.
And is there anything more worthless in music than top 40 pop songs?
Mark Night from Hit Songs Deconstructed, over on Music Think Tank, spoke about the most common technical similarities between ‘hit’ songs:
A short, effective intro that instantly hooks the listener into the song, a first chorus that hits early, infectious and simplistic melodies, fluctuations in MTI levels (momentum, tension, intensity), frequent sectional turn-over, universal yet clever lyrics, and the A-B-A-B-C-B form (verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus) to name just a few.
He’s right of course, these are common technical elements, and you should be aware of them.
But only so you don’t make too frequent use of them.
With the exception of his comment about pacing and momentum, I’d advise avoiding the ideas in that quote.
Write songs with long intros if you want. Write songs with obscure lyrics. Write songs that don’t use that Verse Chorus structure, that have no traditional melody at all.
You won’t write a hit, because as I say, Hit Songs Deconstructed do their job very well.
I just think the world would be a better place with fewer top 40 hits.
Related posts:
About the Author
Tom IndieSongwriter.net is a website about songwriting. It is written by Tom Slatter, a musician and teacher who can also be found at tomslatter.co.uk. IndieSongwriter, used to be called Songwright.co.uk.
Related Posts
Why do all pop songs sound the same? →
The Beatles are the Best Artists for any Songwriter to Study – Part Two. →
The Beatles are the Best Artists for any Songwriter to Study →
I’m all for approaching song writing as a craft and working within the framework of traditional song structures. But it’s depressing to see someone analyse a song based on what percentage of the track is taken up by the chorus!
I disagree. Most pop music is listened to by women 30 and under. So picture this. Shitty job (retail, food service, factory). Low income, Life is not that much fun.
They are not musicians who’ve “been moving to a new job, trying to buy a house”, etc. They may never buy a house. They are not you. Music is not their life.
They want simple, fun, mildly clever pop music with lyrics that they can relate to, and that they don’t have to think too hard about on the way to the job or the mall or the beach during the small amount of free time they have.
Should we deny them that pleasure? Is it so terrible to find out what these women like and give it to them?
Hi Sid,
I think you’ve slightly misunderstood the post. I have no problem with ‘simple, fun, mildly clever pop music with lyrics that they can relate to’. I have a problem with pop by numbers that all sounds the same and is constructed according to market research.
Food is a good analogy – quick, fast convenient food is sometimes what you need. Should my only choice be the same shitty burger with dodgy reprocessed meat, made to taste exactly the same as the last shitty burger I ate? From the point of view of the business this might make sense, from the point of view of the hungry person in a hurry, I’d like some choice.
I also think this attitude to songwriting makes the mistake that a lot of business does. ‘Find out what they want then sell it to them’ – that leads to copycat products each the same as the last. It’s fine for some products, I think it doesn’t work very well with songwriting.
I’ve got nothing to say about the website you suggest nobody needs (I don’t know it, perhaps proving your point).
But I disagree strongly with the title of your blog post.
The world may not need any more of what currently passes for hit songs but we desperately need hit songs that are vibrant, full of melody, sung & performed with enthusiasm. In my mind “Please Please Me”, Del Shannon’s “Runaway” or perhaps “The Loco-Motion” are hit pop songs.
It’s a challenge for any songwriter to write something that so perfectly combines simplicity and sing- or danceability ability in a fresh and original way.
I never write a song that aims to avoid the audience. Every musical idea I follow is – at least to me – interesting and worth pursuing in a “doesn’t this sound good” kinda way. Sometimes the idea is indeed asking for a long intro and for veering from a verse-chorus structure but I always hope that the song will connect with a listener.
In other words, there’s no (artistic) point in formulaic writing but at the same time I don’t see much point either in writing songs that do not try to connect with an audience.
Hi Markus,
The point I’m trying to make is that writing songs with the mind set ‘I’m going to write a hit pop song’ and then following through logically by treating songwriting as an exercise in product development (that’s what that website does) is counter-productive. It doesn’t lead to ‘songs that are vibrant, full of melody, sung & performed with enthusiasm’. It leads to lifeless beige rubbish. I know that’s nothing new, but I object to it.
Writing a good song doesn’t necesssarily mean writing something ‘difficult’, I mean that you need to worry about the listener, not what the top 40 ‘market’ appears to dictate.
Allo!
I agree that following a formula to churn out top 40 hits can lead to similar sounding, dull, songs.
However, I don’t object to it. Some people are in that top 40 market, and totally love that. And if people want to cater to that market, and have found a formula, it doesn’t matter to me.
As a musician, I want to focus more on my audience. The mainstream market isn’t my audience and I don’t plan on it ever being my audience. So I don’t really worry too much on what they like or don’t like.
I think I would look at it like this, what if someone said to me “There are too many geek songs in the world.” I would reply, “For whom? For you? Then that’s fine. It’s ok that you don’t like them. You aren’t the intended audience.”
It bothers me, Errol
The notion of ‘catering to market’ of thinking with that mindset feels wrong. Write the song, using the 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration, songcraft and hair pulling –> put it in front of an audience –> see if they like it – that process makes sense.
Analyse -> research -> construct a musical product based on previously succesful products -> face with interchangeable pop singer -> market to a demographic : I object to this.
I don’t think it’s just a case of language either – I think the commerical, advertising demographicy markety way of speaking leads to an innaccurate way of thinking about the artform.
Yes, you’re right in the sense that people can write and listen to what they want and I wouldn’t stop them (Unless I have the power to do that with my little blog… Can I do that? Cos if I can that’s a power I could happily misuse). But let’s not pretend it makes the world a nicer place to have the musical experiences of a large chunk of the population consisting of nothing but bland pap.
I remember going to a songwriting workshop years ago at which a middle-aged male “successful” songwriter told us that to have our songs sell we’d have to appeal to the drive-to-work radio market and to do so, we should pick a theme that women aged 20-40 (or some such female demographic) could relate to. And what did these women want to sing along to? Songs about love! Obviously! I thought, hey, I’m a woman aged 20-40, and the LAST thing I want to hear first thing in the morning on my way to work, quite frankly, is another love song or broken-hearted song. If ONLY I could hear something, fresh, new, different – something that would express another aspect of LIFE! The talk was actually helpful for me as a songwriter, because it made me ask what I, as a listener, am longing for.
Hmm. I speak as a woman in that “under 30″ demographic mentioned – 27, to be exact. My income is very low, less than standard JSA (£71 per week), and I am not eligible for top-up benefits since I only work part-time. So my life is not the easiest; yet I couldn’t agree more with this blog post. I don’t want to be patronised and pandered to with torrents of lightweight fluff. Once in a blue moon I will listen to it; it’s not exactly scarce or hard to find, and it’s fun when I feel a little mindless. In a sense, I suspend criticism, go with the flow and allow myself to be manipulated in this.
Unfortunately, the fluff does push the more thoughtful and interesting bands – the ones I actually respect, admire and care about – out of the spotlight. So much so, that I’ve given up on mainstream media as a source of new music; sometimes there’s a gem, but the signal-to-noise ratio is low. We definitely don’t need more music written from a marketing perspective.
I’m suspicious of the criteria they use when choosing songs to record. They consider all avenues for profit, including TV adverts and background music for dramas, which on a big channel might well pay more than music sales. Background music has to be deeply formulaic, or it starts to upstage the product or TV show. So that’s another source of pressure to simplify and spoonfeed.
There’s a interesting book called FutureHitDNA by Jay Frank that I really like. It explains some of the shifts in popular music and why they happened. For example songs in the 90s had longer and longer intros because radio programmers would use them to play jingles over before the vocals came in, but with the rise of mp3s and streaming, intros are disappearing. That’s not to say you have to write with those things in mind, but it’s good to know why they are there, and when they might disappear. I think looking back over the last few centuries it’s pretty clear there is no clear link between instant popularity (charts) – long term popularity – and great music. I just ignore sites like the one you mentioned because I don’t think they can ever succeed at doing what they propose.
You make a good point about the difference between instant popularity and long term popularity, Matt.
Another reason I object to this sort of site is that it ignores who most songwriters are – most people I know who right songs do it for themselves. It’s an art form, a hobby and they just don’t care whether their songs might be commercial.
I prefer songwriters like that. It feels a lot more honest.