Hacker News Reader

Comment by gt2 | Hacker News Reader

Couldn't those guys' track of success be due to cronyism in the music industry?

Their songs are formulaic. I'm sure many of these 2 guys' songs are played in this video that cycles through a long list of hit songs which have the same progression (transposed into the same key so the similarities can more easily be noticed) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ

So perhaps anyone can write the songs, but not everyone has access to the pop stars (or access to these 2 guys).

I'm not an expert song writer myself, but I am a musician and lover of music. Based on the fact that there's awesome music noone's ever heard of or that doesn't get as much play as some lesser quality music, I have to echo the common sentiment that the music industry is a fashion show/popularity contest with gatekeepers (still). Not saying it's not all a sham, I think the difference that comes from the human performing is huge, and I love to see and hear that.

View on HN

I have to admit I find many of those Martin & Gottwald tunes "catchy" for whatever reason. Cronyism alone can't create catchiness. Hard to argue with success. Bring on the cheese! Note that many tunes which use the common pop chord progressions also fail.

In my opinion the "big pop guys" you mention are:

A) Fantastic producers -- the production from these guys is phenomenal, and IMHO this is what really "makes the song".

B) Great at writing to a formula. The tunes are "catchy" but I cannot think of anything that would be considered really innovative musically.

There's no sin in that necessarily... it certainly takes talent to "know what works" and "know what doesn't"... and for the type of pop music they do (largely teen pop and other pop formulas), formula is fine.

I will say that pop producers like these guys tend to be really solid in the groove / rhythm department, in particular.

C) Great at artistic collaboration... big pop outfits now write in large groups. Knowing the way many musicians are, that's an accomplishment in itself. :) This probably contributes to the "solid song that isn't innovative" aspect... all the left-fieldisms of an artist are probably smoothed out. But again, this pop.

Overall the music product is a professional creation, designed for a market that always was and always will be half song-and-dance youth fashion show as one of the posters alluded to. :) Not a music style I care for personally.

But a popular one, and it takes something to do it as well as these guys do.

I agree with your point about the producers being talented and most times the driving force behind these hits.

What really isn't that clear with these songs, and I believe that's why so many people dislike them (altough they agree they sound catchy) is because the performer of the song isn't necesarilly the creative force behind the song; as it was proven with the video of how the song "Middle" came to be. The girl that sings the song actually played little part in the creative process, and is part of the song because of her voice and probably looks.

A good comparison could be with Hollywood movies. No one can argue that they are extremely produced and market focused; so, when you hear a song by Katy Perry or by <replace_with_trendy_name> is the performer a good actor or a good director, or both?

I never understood why people care how many people are part of the creation of music. The overall product should be better if every part of it (writing, producing, perfoming, ...) is executed by an expert in the field and not by a single person.

Re: "[not] really innovative musically."

Innovation is hard to objectively measure. I judge most music by whether I enjoy it, not how "innovative" it is. Innovation is nice, but "like" is much better. Most styles are cyclical and borrow from the past. Disco-esque music has come back twice. Anything "new" is probably just borrowing bits and pieces from different eras.

If it were easy, anybody with money would make a hit. If they make a catchy song, I give them kudos regardless of how they made their sausage. To quote a pop song: "Shuddup and dance!"

> If it were easy, anybody with money would make a hit.

But anyone with money and the right relationship with the distribution gatekeepers pretty much does.

I sometimes go to amateur music sites, and most of it sucks. Gems are really hard to find. Better distribution wouldn't make it un-suck.

True, it could take multiple factors, such as the best writers plus the best arrangers/producers plus the best musicians plus the best distribution channels. But all those prerequisites still means it's not trivial to do right. It's like the NBA: the best players and best coaches and best owners tend to find each other and gather.

>Hard to argue with success.

It is easy to argue with success if you could prove it was due to cronyism. :)

>Cronyism alone can't create catchiness.

I don't see how cronyism could create catchiness at all but cronyism could account for the perception that only two people can do it when the actual number could be a much highe.

I think there may be some gatekeeping but also I think there really is a formula that more people like- and by taking ideas and tweaking them to sound sweeter and more energetic you get more sales. The bigs guys are just walking around and either signing talent to produce ideas for the pop-filter-Machine, or stealing their riffs wholesale.

Where is the gate keeping? Anyone can get their music on iTunes, Spotify, etc. by going through a company like CD Baby. Getting noticed on the other hand is harder.

I don’t know how it works with pop music, but hip hop artists have a long history of selling CDs out of a trunk, marketing through barber shops, etc. and going around the establishment until they get noticed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com