Latest on MJJC

inspiration or technique? what makes a hit song?

144000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
10,310
Points
0
Location
united states
ok, i'm not really asking for the formula for a hit song, but rather, i am asking why some songs really seem to work, when they seem to be technically off. i heard this song on a love song program, and, in it, the lead singer def is flat, and yet that's the only way the song works. the song is called 'always and forever' by heatwave. i have the live performance here, but the singer does the same thing as in the original recording that i heard on the station. now one might ask why the writer didn't try to find another singer. apparently the writer's decision was right. and it's not lost on me that the lead singer referred to the writer as 'our organ player'. and that writer is Rod Temperton.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ePZzoUcOnXA

now here's the original recorded version. it's cut off, but not before the point i am trying to make is demonstrated.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x3oHUdhb_hI&feature=related

there is a song on the current countdown that has a title that i kinda forgot...something about trains or planes..or somn..lol..but, anyway, the singers are way off key and the song is an enormous hit.

and then there is this song...'lean on me'...an upbeat tune that made it to number 1 in the nineties, i think... where the instruments are almost in a different key than the singers, yet it's the same key....it's as if the singers didn't have as trained an ear as some might like..but, somehow..the song works that way.

http://noolmusic.com/youtube_videos/club_nouveau_-_lean_on_me_-_music_video.php

so..that's the question i pose. does inspiration trump technique to you?

and do u have some examples of songs where you think that inspiration trumped technique, if u think it does?

(lol..maybe it's me thinking that although some peeps may have had a problem with Akon on HMH, the mesh of two entirely different voices on the song was what the song needed)

edit: i see the song i couldn't remember the title to is 'paper planes' by M.I.A. and i see that it's been nominated for a grammy. well..the record has, but same difference. in fact, it makes my point even more, because the artist was considered.

so..is one person's trash another person's treasure?

anyway...i'll give my opinion, after, hopefully, more people post.

and here is paper planes

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7sei-eEjy4g
 
Last edited:
by 'flat' do you mean not dynamic enough or as in pitch-problems? because coupled with Rod's genius, Wilder's sweet falsetto made that track what it is, and bumps either scenario. or it could be a matter of the controversial dissonance issue taking place for each individual, making it a very subjective experience.

i mean the bloke got paralysed, then had to retrain his voice, and the band still kept him as lead on tour albeit hidden under a backstage screen, which was cold of them.

and how do you define both 'technical' and 'inspirational'?
 
vncwilliam said:
edit: i see the song i couldn't remember the title to is 'paper planes' by M.I.A. and i see that it's been nominated for a grammy. well..the record has, but same difference. in fact, it makes my point even more, because the artist was considered.

so..is one person's trash another person's treasure?

anyway...i'll give my opinion, after, hopefully, more people post.

and here is paper planes

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7sei-eEjy4g
Click to expand...
excellent modern-day example. she's marmite like Akon. people are raving about her and others hating hard on the net.

well i think Santagold's weird approach here concentrates less on singing, and more on trying her hardest to sound different with the slight rap-singing approach.

she's a Philly girl with a heavy British singing accent, lol. it's irony for us Brits. i actually like her a lot.

i agree with you on one person's pleasure = another's trash. it's all subjective, with minimal objectivity in art. although our esteemed DenisRS likes to think otherwise:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=496847&highlight=objective#postcount=1

it's deep and commendable, but i still believe subjectivity looms over all.
 
arXter said:
by 'flat' do you mean not dynamic enough or as in pitch-problems? because coupled with Rod's genius, Wilder's sweet falsetto made that track what it is, and bumps either scenario. or it could be a matter of the controversial dissonance issue taking place for each individual, making it a very subjective experience.

i mean the bloke got paralysed, then had to retrain his voice, and the band still kept him as lead on tour albeit hidden under a backstage screen, which was cold of them.

and how do you define both 'technical' and 'inspirational'?
Click to expand...

other than me saying i think u answered ur own question, if u will remember Berry Gordy saying to Michael, 'shoulders' instead of 'shoulder'..and..'leave the 'mistakes' in.' how Berry loved the 'mistakes' during the recording.

edit: having seen ur later posts, i see u have answered my question, fully, though you asked me what i mean by inspiration vs. technique.
 
vncwilliam said:
other than me saying i think u answered ur own question, if u will remember Berry Gordy saying to Michael, 'shoulders' instead of 'shoulder'..and..'leave the 'mistakes' in.' how Berry loved the 'mistakes' during the recording.

edit: having seen ur later posts, i see u have answered my question, fully, though you asked me what i mean by inspiration vs. technique.
Click to expand...

my second post is regarding subjectivity vs. objectivity in art, and so is the part you emboldened in my first one. i agreed with your 'one person's trash = another's gold' argument.

i still don't know how you define 'technical' vs. 'inspirational' since when you described Johnnie Wilder's singing voice as flat, i heard it fine. so what is technical then if the experience may differ for each individual?
 
arXter said:
my second post is regarding subjectivity vs. objectivity in art, and so is the part you emboldened in my first one. i agreed with your 'one person's trash = another's gold' argument.

i still don't know how you define 'technical' vs. 'inspirational' since when you described Johnnie Wilder's singing voice as flat, i heard it fine. so what is technical then if the experience may differ for each individual?
Click to expand...

well..Johnnie Wilder seemed to rise up to the note, as if climbing a hill and then slide down and go slightly flat and rise back up to the note. i'm not saying whether it's wrong or right. i remember Cher having the tendency to fall off of a note..taper off, and her advisers must have told her not to do it..but nonetheless, she had hit songs either way. but again, u answered ur question with ur last sentence. it differs with each individual. like i think i stated earlier...Luther Vandross redid the song 'always and forever' and he didn't go flat or slide or anything. he was totally right on key. yet his version did not do as well as Johnnie's. so...i don't think there is a wrong answer..but i do think if it clicks for you, then you should keep it. by click, i mean if ur inspired. sometimes i'll hear a voice crack, and i'd rather it stayed cracked, than get 'fixed', because it works for the song.
 
got you. we're both on the same page..


start_quote_rb.gif
"I don't like to use compressors and take away my textures, because I was raised on music that was recorded before technology advanced to the place where it could be smooth. I wanna hear that thickness of sound. You can't get that from a computer, because a computer's too perfect. But that human element, that's what makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I love that."
end_quote_rb.gif


Lauryn Hill, Rolling Stone 1999
​
 
What makes a song...?

Originality, Creativity, Artistic Expression, and the Inspiration that gives birth to the Artist's child that they refer to as a composition better known as a song...:punk:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top