"just make great music."  

Stadia? C'mon alla ya anglish purists...U2 PLAYS STADIUMS!

Ars longa, vita brevis. That's ars, not pop music. That which is disposable deserves to vanish. Corellation is not causation. Popularity is not quality. Caveat auditor!

Longetivity?

"Everything popular is wrong."

- Wilde

"All Art is quite useless"

-Wilde, who knew a thing or two about fashion, popularity and fleeting beauty

say you until the next "2010's revival" , how that dance music was so cool..... people say the same thing every decade... then they grow up and search for the music of their youth... pathetic...

The title to this article should say "OPINION". 

There is a science to great music.  Those that continuously study it thrive in it.  Those that "ride the wave" don't last. 

The problem is that not very many people take the time out to study music.  They think they can just start singing, or start writing and that's it.  No music theory, no mixing techniques, no understanding what truly makes hit records and why?  They don't study the psychology of music, nor do they care. 

The wrong chords in a chorus will not equal a hit.  3 part harmonies have to correspond with the production.  A wrong note in that equation will never make a hit record. We could dive really deep into this rabbit hole, but who will get it anyway?  Surely not the writer of this article. 

There is more mathematical formula in hits like "Moves Like Jagger" and "Party Rock" than the average person can even imagine.

+1

Just because there's science in making something doesn't mean that it's then good or quality.  It just means its marketable

So you can say the same thing about Doritos: it takes a lot of R&D and expensive scientists and labsl to make that chip zing.  It also needs lots of advertising and ruining of festivals like SXSW.

But it's crap! It's not good food -- 

Indeed.  Product+Personality=Brand.  Please note that quality does NOT matter in this equation

I'm speaking of the science of making perfect music to the ears, nothing to do with marketing. 

Think Voice Leading..

Quality is not a criteria in judging art.

If you think something is crap, somebody else thinks it is great. Food the same. It is a little bit over confident and pretentious and short sighted to think one has the truth about such subjective matters :-o

R.P. gets it....the rest of you don't.  You don't have to like it.
No one said these songs are great............there is an art going on here and it requires years of honing the craft of songwriting.
Try writing a single sometime.......best of luck with that. 

Great music does not have to be either deep or meanigful.  It does not have to be complex or written by a pro with a music background. Great music can be sugar coated, deep or cheesy lyrically, 3 chords or every chord. For music to be great all it has to do is resonate with a large enough group of people who really think it is great and who feel strongly enough about it to evangelize it to others. It doesn't have to be immortal.  It can be the flavor of the month with a short shelf life.  I never could understand how someone could throw paint randomly at a canvas and 20 years later someone else would pay $20 million for it.  But they did and still do.  If enough people consider something great art then it is. The same is true with music. Greatness is clearly determined by the ears of the listener.  Is an undeniable hook sung by Bruno Mars "great music?"  Sure it is. Those who think it's not do not feel and experience it the same way that those who think it is.  You can break it down any way you want but great music is an absolute requirement for a great career and financial success in the music business.

I disagree completely with your opinion on this, Paul.  Just make great music is perfectly good advice. People simply misinterpret what it means. If you're a shoegazing indie-rock hipster, your music has to be great enough to appeal to pitchfork bloggers and the denizens of Silverlake and SoHo. Your "great" has to coincide with what that audience considers great, which may be lyrics, lo-fi production and jangly guitars. Pop song structure isn't necessarily what that audience considers great.

Conversely, if you aspire to be a sugary pop artist at the top of the Big Champagne and Billboard charts who is covered by TMZ, then you need to find the best producers and pop writers who understand the art of crafting an infectious and possibly vapid pop song. 

Great means different things to different people. I'll guarantee a lot of fans of Katy Perry think Arcade Fire suck...the reverse is obviously true.

Just because you make infectious, goofy, throw away pop doesn't mean you don't have to be great at doing it. If Party Rock Anthem didn't have a hook, the fans of that kind of music wouldn't think it was great.

excellent analogy to doritos. its not like lmfao studied music theory to come up with their repetitive generic beats ... its just musical monosodium glutamate, mate.  to say that these pop- schlock meisters are talented geniuses because they don't put a wrong note in the vocal harmonies or clam up a chord with a weird tension note is hardly making a point...all songwriter teams have at least one actual musician who studied at berklee or somewhere, and probably has the chops to do something more interesting than the soulless pablum they're called on by the record company, managers, etc. to produce... what's the point?

You give way too much credit to the artists rather than the people behind the scenes. That's the problem. 

It is a great song the LFMAO thing. It will be remembered longer than say, fantastic ground breaking artist like Steve Stevens (my fav) ... Fortunately for me, I can appreciate both and I rarely feel endangered by top charts products to the point to call them birdy names  ;-)

I was once given an early tape of Bright Eyes. BOY was it BAD! 

Can't say much bad about the kid, Conor Oberst, today LOL.  Seems to have done okay by most standards - except massive national popularity perhaps. 

Good music is good music if "I" (any "I") say it's good. 

Perhaps the title should have read Just Make Great Eclectic Elitist Music?  It Could Be the Worst Advice Ever ... unless you want a small audience of fanatical followers and friends. ROFL

Is it possible that Dr. Luke is a genius, Carly Rae Jepsen's song appeals to a sentiment every girl (and guy) has had before, and LMFAO just made great party music that people wanted to both dance and sing along to?

Is it possible that "great" is objective and the people determine what is truly great over the course of time? That Mozart was the most popular artist of his time, a rockstar in his own right? That nostalgia is simply a remembering of what was loved and passed?

Is it possible that your music-snobbery is just wrong, and that hundreds of "mass-produced" label artists fail simply because they are not as good as Katy Perry, LMFAO, or Rihanna (whose song "We Found Love" has driven me to tears)?

I wonder. 

Why didn't I think of equating Mozart with LMFAO and Katy Perry.  Absolutely right, they'll be studying the chord progressions, voicing choices and rhythms of today's popstars 200+ years from now just like our music scholars study that pop star Mozart dude. good point. 

Billboard Hot 100 Singles #1s 

June 16, 1962 - Ray Charles "I Can't Stop Loving You". 

June 17, 1972 - Sammy Davis Jr. "The Candy Man"

June 12, 1982 - McCartney and Jackson "Ebony and Ivory"

June 13, 1992 - Mariah Carey "I'll Be There"

June 15, 2002 - Ashanti "Foolish"

Personally, I think the Ray Charles is the only non-shitty song on that whole list.

(Okay, Mariah does belt out that cover pretty well, but you know...not exactly a classic recording.)

Agreed. The others are pure kitsch.

- V

Totally...

It Could Be the Worst Advice You'll Ever Get...

so true.

+1

We teach artists it is vitally important to find out and get to know who your audience is, and then give them what they want. Having a 20 year age span target to aim at helps focus in on a particular demographic.

Music isn't about what you get, it's about serving culture and providing them content that moves them emotionally.

You don't have to be the best, but you do need to know what you are doing, have a plan (in pencil) and then work at it.

People are drawn to passion, this is why musicially inferior artists can do well with their music. It's not about excellence, although it helps to be excellent at whatever you do in your music mission.

Music is like being a chef. All have the same ingedients at their disposal, but its how you combine those ingedients that determine the meal you make.

Keith Mohr
www.indieheaven.com
www.indiemechanics.com 

But what if I'm Jewish?

really? make jewish music and have fun. Who cares?

Jeez, where to start...

"Apples and Oranges??"

Making what "instrumentalists" call great music works great for bands like Radiohead, Spoon, Black Keys, Arcade Fire and other indie to mainstream bands like that. Those bands do well, sell lots of records (by today's standards) and tour successfully.

That said, I completely reject EVERYONE'S comments claiming that that "pop stuff" is bad. I'm a musician, and have spent my teenage and adult life playing in rock and indie bands. And I also own CDs and downloads of Britney, GaGa, et al, and do a lot of spotify listening to it too... But I don't call it "pop music" I call it "dance music". Its influenced by disco and electronic music and based upon a groundwork laid by Donna Summer, Madonna, Run DMC and assorted 80s synth pop and HipHop.

Musicians/instrumentalists (and rock listeners) often reject dance music as "crap" because it doesn't fit their musical palette and it isn't played on stringed instruments or woodwinds or whatever. I find this a rather limited view point, but whatev.

In any genre, some stuff is crap, and some stuff is good, and that is always more or less in the ear of the beholder. I can tell you which dance music stuff I think is crap (Pitbull) and which I think is brilliant (Robyn), and can do the same for rock (crap: Nickelback, brilliant: oh shit who cares, you name it, how about Blur). But if you try to tell me that Nickelback is better than Lady Gaga just because they play stringed instruments, I will immediately call rock elitism and have no respect for your view point.

Regarding lasting quality, I can think of all kinds of "pop crap" that has stood the test of time. TLC still sounds great. One hit wonder Young MC have a whole album of great material that I can listen to and dig on to this day. Going back further, the original boy band The Monkees' early manufactured hits still sound great today. I could go on, but what's the point?

And yes, I play guitar, in unpopular good music playing indie bands no less. But the same rejections of new popular music have been aimed at every type of music over the ages. Remember when "Heavy Metal" was just a bunch of noise? When Rock 'n' Roll was nothing but trash?

*end rant*

THAT IS rock n roll :-D

The reactions on this thread makes me think of a Bob Moog interview I wateched again recently. In his debut, when his synths were getting more famous, interviewers kept asking him "aren't you ashamed of what you've done".... The people felt their culture was so weak that it would be destroyed and was facing total anihiliation by tools like the synth (or a few years before, the electric guitar, and even before, all that jazz)....

We are in an era where people are so lost that they can't keep their eyes off the past and what they think deserves eternal recognition by being called "culture" ....

Hear Hear!

Culture, like civilization itself, is a fragile thing. That does not make it less valuable.

- V

Culture, like civilization itself, is a fragile thing. That does not make it less valuable.

- V

The King is Dead ... Long Live the King!  Paul, this has always been the way of the record business.  It is shocking sometimes to see this new generation of website techies seeing the realties of the business of music for the first time.  Those experienced in the music business know that the vast majority of people that listen to and "consume" music are mass market oriented.  The master of this was an unknown record executive by the name of Clive Davis (for those of you too young to know).  This aspect of the music business has not changed and I doubt ever will at least for the foreseeable future.

Pop is popular becaus it is redundant, hence familiar and brain friendly. that's how we roll. However, when the bottom line ignores or snuffs out innovative or challenging music the art suffers and we fail to grow as our spirits demand. The challenge for true musicians, as opposed to entertainers is to set aside the ego to discover how to relate to the masses. Now that is true genius, and it will pay great dividends.

Yes Paul, you speak the truth.  There is a formula to mass market success.  It does not mean that artists who break the mold cannot breakthrough with some regularity (they often do) but it does challenge those, who aspire to something more, to prepare themselves for a life of hard work--just like the jazz/classical/avant garde musicians who are some of the world's best artists but often have to teach to supplement income.  They know that no one owes them fame and fortune but they work at it anyway cuz they can't help themselves.  Adele and early Nora Jones are two examples of recording artists with records that sounded nothing like their contemporaries when first released. Anyone who has ever been in the hallways of a major knows how many people who were paid to know were saying "who knew!" as a way to deflect their fear of risk taking.  Never trust anyone who says "who knew" cuz that means they were supposed to know what it was that they said "who knew" about.

How come no one else has noticed the resemblence between Gotye's pop chart song and Twinkle Twinkle Little Star?

why?

Didn't Prince claim to write many of his songs based on nursery rhymes and children's songs?

- V

 It Could Be the Worst Advice You'll Ever Get...

(if you're trying to "make it")

One of the dumbest advice articles I've ever had the displeasure of reading.  It is what is wrong with the world ... too many people being paid handsomely to produce shite.

The world needs to be educated - I am sure that people would love decent music [read:  not sugary pop] if they were exposed to it on regular terrestial radio, and didn't have to work so hard to find it. 

But that doesn't happen. 

It's not that the general population has bad taste - it's that they are to easily manipulated by the machine, and don't get to hear the alternatives. 

The world needs a paradigm shift, but that ain't gonna happen, so might as well not get stressed about it.

Oh, and Kenny G - I'd rather listen to Beiber for a year.  And that is stretching things too far and too silly to even comprehend.

Good evening.

Everything STARTS with a great song. Period.

What is "great" music is very subjective. Not all of popular music is disposable fluff, you know. Some of the most popular songs are very well written and will be able to stand up 20, 30, 50 years from now. On the flip side, not everything written by more "serious" artists is great music. They have put out their fair share of awful songs, as well.

Also, it's rather insulting to sugget that just because they are a pop artist, they aren't trying to put out great music. 

This is so true.

"Just Make Great Music" is probably some of the worst advice in this day and age

#sadbuttrue

Interesting read.

Someone's drinking the "Field of Dreams" koolaid. Everyone's definition of 'great' music will differ, but to suggest great music will self-promote is delusional. Inform, persuade, remind. Rinse, lather, repeat...

Someone please save the music this stuff now a days is terrible.

Am I on the right track with my "absurdative" music on: twoabsurd.com? Give it a listen. Hey...ya never know!

When making great music isn't the goal, one must wonder how shallow the objective of the career.

So this authors advice is "sell out?" Interesting. NO! What kind Of crap advice is this? Study how to be a pop artist? Do what's popular? Look, the proof is there: TRENDS END. Now it's dance/house music. Then it's Adele. Next it'll be something else. Music moves in trends and cycles. If you're always trying to chase the wave, how are you supposed to get noticed with every other person doing the same stuff? Sorry, not all of us have connections and relatives in the business, so we'll get lost in the endless sea of wanna-be's! I think the advice rings true: make good music. You need to be SMART about it though. Assume it will be difficult, and be prepared. Have a plan. Think of who your music speaks to, and how should you market and promote it to them. Work the social connections you do have and go from there. There's a whole bunch of other advice that goes along with that "just make good music" line. The author is just taking that advice out of context and making it sound stupid. I can't take this sell out advice.

"Great" is subjective. Stopped reading when I realized this was just a bitch fest about pop music.

It's not like there wasn't crappy, brainless music back when Zep or the Stones were writing songs that we revere as hits today, it's just bands like Zep or the Stones were also on top. Today there are still those crappy groups, but they often stand alone on the radio. Their presence may not be able to be eliminated but their company (i.e. whatever equivalent to someone like the Stones might be today - which there obviously isn't, but that's a whole other article) can be adjusted...

Watch BBC 4 in the UK, and you'll get to see Top of the Pops 1970 -79. What is interesting about these programs is that even back then huge bands like Led Zep, Deep Purple, Pink Floyd, Genisis etc were not to be seen, nope - all you got on the program was "popular" music - ie pop,  with some soft rock, country, disco and occaisionally some punk thrown in to make it look credible, but even then you'd not see the sex pistols or any of the really edgy punk bands on it. 

Why? Because what was shown was up to the BBC taste makers, and they fed generations of kids trite music which kept the record labels making lots of money on single releases.

If you wanted to see a good rock band, you'd have to tune into "The Old Grey Whistle Test", and it is worth pointing out that many big rock bands didnt release singles, just albums, so would never be considered for TOTP anyway.

The point is that as long as music is driven by big labels looking for a number one single hit, nothing will change.

Popular music is chart driven, and because "Pop" has pretty much been the driving force for the charts over the last 40 odd years, thats what the public expect, and thats what they get.

To use the terminology of "great music" is in my opinion a misnomer, because there is a huge amount of good music out there that the average joe on the street will probbably never hear - because of the way the whole system is set up.

Want to be huge and make tons of cash? Write chart topping music - it doesnt have to be great, it has to conform.

Thats my opinion!