Who are today's talented lyricists?

John Lennon once said "say what you want to say, and put a backbeat to it" when asked about his songwriting method.

One will never argue that Lennon was an extremely skillful melody writer, with a unique ability to say so much with so few words. When time permits, read the lyrics to " Imagine", "Mind Games" or "All You Need Is Love" as standard prose. Very simple stuff, isn't it? Now sing those words to the melody of those songs, and see how the lyrics come to life!!

The classic writers of the Brill Building era [e.g. Neil Diamond, Gerry Goffin/ Carole King] employ the same modus operandi to the same effect.

Let's roll it forward to the present day, and let's focus on Top 40 pop music. I'll admit that I'm a little behind the times in being up-to-date with "the latest thing", however I am curious to know as to how today's successful singer-songwriter pop writers compare to previous generations.

Rap & Hip-Hop can be excluded from the comparision, as these genres focus on very "wordy" lyrics to attract the listener's ear.

Folks - it's open forum. Who are today's talented lyricists?

Making a breakthrough in music today

Historically [i.e. in pre-Internet days] a new music act would start out by touring relentlessly, in the hope that they would attract the interest of a label or manager. This action may lead to signing a recording contract. Once an album/ CD was recorded, the new music act would tour relentlessly in an effort to promote the new album/ CD. All things equal, the promotion of the CD/ album may lead to the new music act gaining some radio airplay, which would lead to some chart action/ album/ CD sales.

The new music act would follow exactly the same path in order to gain an audience in other overseas territories.

If successful on both of these fronts, the new music act's label could use their muscle to place one of the new music act's songs onto the soundtrack of a Hollywood film. This action would garner an even larger audience for the new music act.

This is called "paying one's dues", and I have a tremendous amount of respect for all of the artists who have followed this path in order to achieve the level of success that they desire.

Question: How does a new music act make a breakthrough today?

Using my homeland of Australia as a basis for my response, the live music venue scene has been steadily declining since the mid-1980's. This can be explained by local anti-smoking laws/ the introduction of poker machines to venues previously preserved for the performance of live music [especially new music acts]. Sure, there will always be a live music scene, however at present the focus is on "nostalgia" acts [i.e. guaranteed profit spinners for the promoter of music artists].

Radio stations in Australia [and worldwide] have been corporatised to the extent that it is very difficult for new music to find its way onto widestream audio waves. There will always be avenues for new music acts to "make it onto radio", however this will be limited to community radio stations with a very narrow listening audience.

Massive revenue was historically generated from album/ CD sales, however the present trend of single mp3 file sales has seen recorded music gross revenue savaged.

When analysed in that sense, why would a new music act attempt to "pay their dues" today?

There will always be exceptions to every rule. The most successful pop star in the world at present is Lady Gaga. How has she achieved massive commercial appeal, against these odds? Does she have a specific "X Factor", or has she been incredibly lucky?

What makes bands such as The Fray or Snow Patrol considerably more popular than the thousands of other bands around the world producing a similar type of music? Is their success purely based upon song placement in popular TV shows?

One thing is for sure, music will never die, nor will the following generation's desire to make their music reach a largest audience possible.

Who knows, maybe the entire process of success in music will come full circle?

Powderfinger R.I.P.

I read with interest during the week that the popular Australian rock band Powderfinger have announced that they are breaking up.

This leads to a very pertinent question: "When should a popular music group break up?"

Powderfinger is a band of whom I have always been aware of, however I don't own any of their CDs. To be honest, I have always been slightly amazed that the group reached the level of popularity that they attained, as I have always considered them to be a fairly average group with average songs.

I recall that they reached the climax of their popularity in 2003 with the "Vulture Street" CD. As is commonplace in the history of music, the group took an extended break after this success, the lead singer released a very successful solo CD during this break, and Powderfinger lost their momentum.

Their comeback CD was released in 2007. I recall trying very hard to get into Powderfinger at this time, however the song quality just wasn't there. This CD sold in very modest terms.

Soon after this, Powderfinger announced that they would co-head a national tour with silverchair [another popular Australian rock group whom I have never really understood]. It was at this time that I sensed that the end was near for Powderfinger. The press conference reeked of arrogance, which simply wasn't justified in terms of recent "success".

So there we have it. Approximately 7 years [and 2 very modest CDs] after the height of their popularity, Powderfinger have seen the light and pulled the plug on their career.

There will be a farewell tour, however I don't feel that Powderfinger will be remembered in decades to come. It is quite possible that Powderfinger gained public support in the absence of anything better at the time.

Just How Important is the "Album of the Year" Grammy?

I note with interest that "Fearless" by Taylor Swift has taken out this year's Album of the Year Grammy award. This is ever more topical due to the fact that Ms Swift is presently touring my homeland, receiving plenty of press coverage to boot. I'm not that familiar with the music of Taylor Swift; I have heard only 2 of her songs. This being said, how does a 19 year old write/ co-write a complete body of work to garner this title? How does "Fearless" compare to previous Album of the Year Grammy winners? In the present age, does an actual album/ CD hold as much prestige as it once did?

I was born in the early 1970's, thus let's look at some of the Album of the Year award winners for that decade:

1971 - Bridge Over Troubled Waters [ Simon & Garfunkel]
1972 - Tapestry [Carole King]
1977 - Songs In The Key Of Life [Stevie Wonder]
1978 - Rumours [Fleetwood Mac]
1980 - 52nd Street [Billy Joel]

These, my friends, are classic albums

The following decade featured winners of the ilk of Toto, Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie - not bad company to be in.

Beyond 1989, Norah Jones' "Come Away With Me" 2003 victory could be classifed as a classic album, in terms of commercial success, multiple award-winning categories & general "staying power"; adult-orientated radio will NEVER give up on Ms Jones.

Other than this; nada. Did anybody actually by the winning albums by Herbie Hancock or Ray Charles? [the ulitmate sympathy vote]. Do Outkast still exist?

I wonder if Taylor Swift's "Love Story" will be playlisted alongside Carole King's "So Far Away" in 38 years' time?

A New Charity Song Please!!

Without a doubt, the yardstick for charity songs is based around Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas" [1984] and USA For Africa's "We Are The World" [1985]. What do they have in common? Like all of the best songs, they have simple chord structures and memorable melodies. These songs would have been major hits even without the advertisement of a star-studded vocal group.

What's even better, the royalties for both of these songs were distributed to a worthy cause.

Problem: nobody has written a decent charity song since.

I vaguely recall 1991's "Voices That Care", a song recorded for the US Troops in Iraq. The song charted AFTER the Iraq War was over!!

In 1989 & 2004, the best of the current breed of British popstars re-recorded "Do They Know It's Christmas" for charity purposes. Can anybody recall who was in the vocal group for these versions?

I now read that "We Are The World" was re-recorded earlier this week, in order to raise money for the victims of the Haitian earthquake.

This is a for a good cause, albeit a very safe option. Why can't today's breed of talented songwriters pull out a classic, moving new song for this purpose?

Marianne Faithfull continues to dupe the public

I'll be honest...I never have [and never will] have any time for Marianne Faithfull.

Asides from being associated with various members of The Rolling Stones in the 1960's, what has this lady done of importance in her life? Further to this, why is she "critically acclaimed" in all of her chosen pursuits?

Some important things to note:

1. She can't sing to save her life.
2. She is an appalling actress.

Earlier this month, I read with amusement that Marianne Faithfull would be "headlining" a musical production as part of the Sydney Festival 2010. The production was known as "Rogue's Gallery", being a collection of pirate ballads, sea songs and chanteys. Sounds terrible? At $145.00 per paying head, it would want to be good...

This morning I read the reviews of "Rogue's Gallery" in the Sydney Morning Herald; one of the worst musical performances witnessed in recent times. Special mention was made of Ms. Faithfull's "performance". She actually admitted to having not learned any of the songs she was to "sing", and as such "spoke" her lyrics counter to the musical melody.

Don't say I told you so...

The Art of Songwriting...does it last forever?

The Rolling Stones, Elton John, David Bowie, Paul McCartney, Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, Kiss, Stevie Wonder, Carole King....what do these artists all have in common?

These artists were all critically & commercially successful during the 1960's and 1970's due to the strength of their songwriting skills. In addition to this, all of these artists continue to tour the world and their concerts are weighted towards the performance of their greatest hits.

In theory, this concept is fine. However, let's think beyond the past: when was the last time any of these artists actually had a hit song?

Each to their own, however Elton John's "golden period" was 1970-1975. "Start Me Up" was a hit for The Stones in 1981; David Bowie's "Let's Dance" was a hit in 1983...it's a similar story for the balance of these artists.

This notion begs the question: "Does the art of songwriting last forever?".

Granted that musical styles have changed significantly during the decades, all of these artists continue to release new material which is largely overlooked, because it is sub-standard.

The Eagles' "Long Road To Eden" was one of the highest-selling CD's of 2007, however from an artistic perspective it was a blot on their copybook.

Kiss have gone back on their own word of never releasing a new CD again. Maybe Gene Simmons should have stood firm on his original public statement, as the CD has been poorly received.

In a time when "value for money" is important, we continue to pay excessive premiums to see these artists perform their greatest hits [and pay no attention to their new songs].

Does an artists' superior songwriting talent have a shelf life? I believe so....