The Song Fight Bulletin Board

I attended a pop songwriter's workshop last week in NYC, which was very interesting. Not that I care about radio play, which seemed to be the focus of most of the panelists since this was a "pop" session, but it was interesting to hear 7 people (5 A&R and 2 busy songwriters) critiqued people's songs on the spot.

I recommend attending these just for the hell of it. You get a bit of what really happens and perhaps why it's so wrong, and how to get in somehow where you might fit.

There's one in LA coming up in January, with a deadline for submissions December 16th. This isn't about pop, and looks far more involved than the one last week. If you feel you have some professional demos, go for it. It's free! Look at the past panelists listed on this one.

roymond wrote:... it was interesting to hear 7 people (5 A&R and 2 busy songwriters) critiqued people's songs on the spot.

Were there any common themes to the critiques? I mean did you come away with any kind of rules of thumb for what they listened for?

did you at least get the secret handshake, Kabla string, anything like that?

Yes, and they admitted it outright...(nothing we don't already know). Most of the panelists acknowledged that it sucks that this is the reality, but their job is to push successful songs and that means airplay. Mind you, this was specifically a "pop" music session.

- the hook, the hook, the hook. It's all about the hook. How catchy it is when it comes in and how badly you want it before it arrives.

- universal messages. Must appeal to most everyone and/or aply to most every situation, yet somehow not sound like every other universal message.

- radio play is based on random tests the radio companies (well, Clearchannel) are constantly doing called call-outs. This is where they play people 8 - 10 seconds of a song and grade their response. This may or may not be the hook, although labels are increasingly sending in promo CDs with prepared callouts hoping the radio companies use what at least they consider to be the hook. So this just reinforces how important the hook is. If it gets a positive response, it gets added (or remains) on the playlists. If not, the trash bin. Of course this is fine when 2800 different radio stations are determining their own playlists. But the reality is that Clearchannel controls more than 90% of the commercial radio stations, so what survives gets played everywhere and what gets trashed never gets any airplay.

Man do I fucking hate the general listening public. Or, at least, Clearchannel's perception of them.

i've always said it was all about the hook. as popper says....the hook, it brings you back. i ain't tellin you no lie.

a good hook will mask all the other inadequacies. it's well proven. we live in a world of soundbites, and a good hook is really just a good soundbite.

roymond wrote:- the hook, the hook, the hook. It's all about the hook. How catchy it is when it comes in and how badly you want it before it arrives.

- universal messages. Must appeal to most everyone and/or aply to most every situation, yet somehow not sound like every other universal message.

If we're talking about radio, then I totally agree. But how does knowing these things help one write a song more suited towards radio? Like if I went to a dating workshop and they said "Chicks dig guys that are confident and tall", well, I can work on the confidence, but the tallness, I'm kind of screwed on.

It seems to me that you can work on the universality of your lyrics, but how do you work on the catchiness of your hooks? Did they narrow down what makes a hook catchy in any sort of definable or quantifiable sense?

erikb wrote:"Chicks dig guys that are confident and tall", well, I can work on the confidence, but the tallness, I'm kind of screwed on.

Randy Newman hasn't done too poorly. Or Paul Simon.

Are those examples of artists who have done well on radio, without having hook-dominated songs or universal lyrics, or men who have done well with women without being tall?

My point wasn't about tallness being a prerequisite to attractive women, it was that some knowledge, whether true or not, isn't very useful because there's no way to really use that knowledge to give yourself an edge. "Radio is dominated by songs with an emphasis on the hook." Okay, so if I want to get on the radio, I should write catchier songs.

Okay, so how does one do that?

It was a cheap, lazy response. Sorry. But they obviously are successful with the universal appeal thing, and while I don't share their tastes, with the women as well...for whatever reason.

As for hooks - these things are as trendy as any, and the panelists made some vague remarks about "fresh", "new", "good use of a one-word hook", etc. The point was that hooks may be mindless and fun at the same time and often by being mindless they have greater universiality to boot.

Some remarks about what makes a good hook: "quirky enough not to get stale after three listens", "immediately gratifying", "clearly set apart from the rest of the song" (this was in response to one song where it wasn't obvious what was chorus and what was verse, each having strong hooks). Most of these comments make more sense in the context of the critiques offered, but you get the idea.

Personally I find my tastes and responses to "hooks" often are entirely out of sync with what commercial pros like. So for me crafting such a beast would be a very deliberate, focused effort...hey, that's what professional song writing is about, right?

Future optional challenge: top 40 hook-ridden hit radio treatment.

<a HREF="http://www.ascap.com/jam/read_about/con ... html">This </a> is mostly the example sort of description but it does talk about it in some depth and it's from the horses mouth

pegor wrote:<a HREF="http://www.ascap.com/jam/read_about/con ... html">This </a> is mostly the example sort of description but it does talk about it in some depth and it's from the horses mouth

Damn, I keep forgeting about Jam. Good for what it is.

When considering these panelist's responses, take into account the fact that if they break down exactly what they think makes a good hook, as in "use short phrases, don't use too much linear motion, use a few repeated notes", stuff like that (these are not tips, I'm just making that up), they risk giving away the secrets that allow them to make a living.

So it's not surprising to me that they give vague answers to "what makes a good hook"-type questions.

Besides, they don't want to write good songs, they want to write songs that sell, and the two aren't always one and the same.

If you take a rule, and say "this is how to write a good song", eventually that rule will be exactly how not to write a good song, because it'll be tiresome and in need of a fresh technique.

I think a good, solid, ego-free trade of ideas between two songwriters is the best way to learn. Finding someone you can do that with isn't always easy, because they have to either be able to put their own taste aside and examine your craft, or they have to be ok with you taking their advice with a grain of salt as you consider their taste along with their advice. "Make it more aggressive", from someone who can't set aside their own taste, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. From someone who *can* set their taste aside, you can take it as an assessment of what they think you need to do in order to meet what they think is the goal of the song's craft.

JB

jb wrote:So it's not surprising to me that they give vague answers to "what makes a good hook"-type questions.

Besides, they don't want to write good songs, they want to write songs that sell, and the two aren't always one and the same.

If you take a rule, and say "this is how to write a good song", eventually that rule will be exactly how not to write a good song, because it'll be tiresome and in need of a fresh technique.

Well, yeah, which is why it seemed strange to even have a radio songwriting workshop in the first place.

jb wrote: If you take a rule, and say "this is how to write a good song", eventually that rule will be exactly how not to write a good song, because it'll be tiresome and in need of a fresh technique.

I think melodic hooks are subject to the vaguaries of style and era. Something from Take 5 isn't gonna work in a Britanny song. mode/scales and time sigs make them subjective in appeal.

But the Lyrical hooks I think have a universal appeal. "Uhn there it is", and "I did it my way" are instatiations of Lyrical Hook that are gonna hook ya regardless of you're age and affiliation. As such, it seems like you should be able to derive them from some set of rules. The Stones used sayings as hooks. Sorta pre-infected ear worms. Time is on my side, You cant always get what you want, beast of burden etc...

geez work is boring today

The panelists were mostly A&R people, not songwriters.

It was a pop songwriting session, but they did seem to come back to "what works for radio" as the acid test. Which is silly. Hooks are still the main element in pop songs.

pegor wrote:Something from Take 5 isn't gonna work in a Britanny song. mode/scales and time sigs make them subjective in appeal.

I'll bet my teeth Britanny doing Take 5 would sell like hotcakes. Image hook? Technical hook? Odd meters are an easy hook. Ask Sting.

The hook is the thing. I still remember my dad teaching little boy me songwriting skills. He said "You know that Lionel Ritchie song...'You are the sun...'" "Yeah," I said "'...you are the rain, that makes my life this foolish game...'" "How does the verse go?" He asked.

As soon as I think I have a hook idea, I stop working on the song. Come back to it 24 hours later. If it's gone, it wasn't a good enough hook. Sad that it takes that kind of experiment to see for sure; I'd like to know how to just write one.

Hiya Songfight! I ran onto this article about why Adele's music is moving and it made me think of this dusty old thread. So I thought I'd de-lurk and bump......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 01378.html

It kinda just says to generate emotion bend notes, loud quite loud, and modulate up on the chorus. but it's interesting.