Middle-aged Scandinavian men write most American pop hits

[Chumpy]

I recently read this fascinating article in The Atlantic about the folks who write hit after hit for American pop stars. One of the many things I found interesting about this article is how nowadays it isn't good enough to have just one good hook in your chorus, how you need one in the intro, pre, chorus, and bridge. Makes me want to study modern pop music to learn how to write better songs.

Most of the great details in this article come from the book The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory which hasn't been published yet, but is making the rounds among journalists.

[AJOwens]

Thanks, that was an interesting read. But whether modern pop music, as represented by the likes of Rihanna or Beyoncé or Katy Perry, consists of "better songs" remains an open question. The article hints that the popularity of these tunes may be due in part to the attractiveness of the performers, or their knack for delivering a line. And there seems to an incestuous synergy between them, the boring Scandinavians who scientifically design the musical excitement, and the marketing machine that dominates the channels of distribution.

It's good to know how to generate interest or set moods by managing rhythms, chord patterns, melodic arcs, and so on, but when it comes to "better songs," there has to be more than that to the equation. Where's the heart, where's the soul in these manufactured marvels?

[Chumpy]

I probably should have been more specific. I certainly didn't mean to imply that pop songs are 'better' artistically, I meant better in terms of having a wider appeal on first listen, which can certainly help a song to score better when the votes are counted. As a reviewer, I end up listening to most songs 3-4 times so I can come up with something worthwhile to say, but for a majority of voters I think you only get once shot, and if you disappoint early they probably won't even listen to your entire song. I don't think in terms of hooks, textures, dynamics, and grooves (in fact I barely understand what these terms even mean) but maybe I should.

[jb]

Thanks for the link Chumpy. I pre-ordered the book. I'd love to have some of Ester Dean or Max Martin's techniques in my back pocket.

Everything depends on intent. There's no harm in writing a catchy song if your intent is artful.

JB

[AJOwens]

I probably should have been more specific. I certainly didn't mean to imply that pop songs are 'better' artistically, I meant better in terms of having a wider appeal on first listen, which can certainly help a song to score better when the votes are counted. As a reviewer, I end up listening to most songs 3-4 times so I can come up with something worthwhile to say, but for a majority of voters I think you only get once shot, and if you disappoint early they probably won't even listen to your entire song. I don't think in terms of hooks, textures, dynamics, and grooves (in fact I barely understand what these terms even mean) but maybe I should.

And I didn't mean to come off as harsh; sorry if I did. The article was thought-provoking, so I just shared my thoughts. It's good to know something about the technique of songwriting, and there's nothing wrong with being catchy (certain annoying Disney or Coca-Cola earworms excepted, I'd have to add). But if you think about classic great songs like Dream a Little Dream, You Are My Sunshine, In the Mood, Mack the Knife, or Yesterday, for example, it puts the efforts of these middle-aged Scandinavian hitmakers in a new, less flattering light. I'm not at all sure their output will stand the test of time in the same way. (I emphatically do not mean Abba here, because they wrote a whole string of memorable top-quality tunes.)