It has recently been revealed that Lady Gaga's singles "Poker Face", "Just Dance" & "Bad Romance" have all registered 4 million plus sales in the USA. That's 12 million plus sales in singles from a CD released in 2008; an extraordinary effort in any sense, and for any music generation.
Whilst it is common knowledge that the music-buying public are trending towards mp3 single songs rather than full CDs these days, it makes interesting research to see where Lady Gaga presently sits in single song sales history in the USA.
4 million plus sales are recorded for "Hey Jude" [The Beatles], "Hound Dog" [Elvis Presley] & "I Will Always Love You" [Whitney Houston]. Each song is a classic, to be revered even in 100 years' time.
5 million plus sales are recorded for "I'm Yours" [Jason Mraz], "I Gotta Feeling" [The Black Eyed Peas] & "Low" [Flo-rida]. Each of these songs was released in the last 3 years, confirming the trend of mp3 sales.
Anything above this level is considered an outrider: "We Are The World" [USA For Africa] stands at 8 million plus, and "Candle In The Wind '97" [Elton John] has sold in excess of 11 million single in the USA. In both cases, these songs were released on the back of extraordinary world events occurring, thus they can be excluded from the assessment.
So, what does this information prove?
1. Lady Gaga is an extremely popular entertainer in the present market. It is very difficult to measure her success in comparison to The Beatles or Elvis, albeit all 3 artists have literally exploded to their level of popularity in a very short space of time. History will determine Lady Gaga's staying power.
2. Music sales revenue is now all about single mp3 sales. This is the future, and we need to accept the trend.
In generations to come, we may very well look back at 2010 as the real starting point for the change in retail sales of music. History has shown that it takes an extraordinary event to change the course of history, and we just may have witnessed it...
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Who are the "smartest" musicians of the past 40 years?
This is a question which is rhetorical within reason. My definition of "smart" refers to those musicians who are well past their "use-by date", however they remain as visable/ relevant as when they were at the peak of their craft. It could be a unique combination of individuality and canny career management, or other unexplained factors.
My 2 nominations for the "smartest" musicians of the past 40 years are:
Elton John - whilst Mr Dwight has consistently released new material over the past 4 decades, in my opinion he peaked circa 1980. If you closely analyse his career management, Elton regularly aligns himself with "the latest thing" in music in order to keep his name in lights. From as far back as 1985 [duets with George Michael, when Michael was at his peak with Wham!] to recent collaborations with The Scissor Sisters, Elton will always be spoken about in the current music media. A very smart operator...
Madonna - when I turned 13, "Like A Virgin" was at the top of the pop charts. 25 years later, she remains extremely visable in the pop media. Recent duets with Justin Timberlake & celebrity divorces/ adoptions are the primary reason for Madonna's name to be known worldwide by all ages. It is apparent that she will vicariously use her daughter's increasing public profile to stay in the limelight. Whilst Madonna continues to release new music, she is essentially doing what she has always done; changing her image for each new CD release. Quite possibly the smartest player in the music business EVER!!!
I'm keen to read your opinions for other "smart" musicians over the past 40 years. Let's exclude all of the nostaglia acts [i.e. Rolling Stones, Kiss] who periodically tour their greatest hits only. Let's focus on the musicians who really use their brains in order to remain viable AND release new material...
My 2 nominations for the "smartest" musicians of the past 40 years are:
Elton John - whilst Mr Dwight has consistently released new material over the past 4 decades, in my opinion he peaked circa 1980. If you closely analyse his career management, Elton regularly aligns himself with "the latest thing" in music in order to keep his name in lights. From as far back as 1985 [duets with George Michael, when Michael was at his peak with Wham!] to recent collaborations with The Scissor Sisters, Elton will always be spoken about in the current music media. A very smart operator...
Madonna - when I turned 13, "Like A Virgin" was at the top of the pop charts. 25 years later, she remains extremely visable in the pop media. Recent duets with Justin Timberlake & celebrity divorces/ adoptions are the primary reason for Madonna's name to be known worldwide by all ages. It is apparent that she will vicariously use her daughter's increasing public profile to stay in the limelight. Whilst Madonna continues to release new music, she is essentially doing what she has always done; changing her image for each new CD release. Quite possibly the smartest player in the music business EVER!!!
I'm keen to read your opinions for other "smart" musicians over the past 40 years. Let's exclude all of the nostaglia acts [i.e. Rolling Stones, Kiss] who periodically tour their greatest hits only. Let's focus on the musicians who really use their brains in order to remain viable AND release new material...
Saturday, June 5, 2010
A Eurovision winning song which might just be a hit outside of Europe!
As a songwriter, I annually take a passing interest in the Eurovision Song Contest.
Whilst this contest has historically brought Abba and Celene Dion to the eyes & ears of the music-loving society outside of Europe, all so often the winning entry becomes a "one-hit wonder" within Europe.
This year, however, things are different...
Whilst casually watching the Eurovision semi-finals on television last Friday night, my attention was taken by Germany's entry in the contest. A song titled "Satellite" by a young lady named Lena, I was immediately hooked by the song's chorus. "This is a smash hit"; I made a mental note to myself.
Lo and behold, "Satellite" is the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest winner.
Out of curiosity, I undertook some research on this song. "Satellite" was written by some US-based songwriters, and it seems specifically for Germany's entry in the Contest. The tune has already been a hit in a handful of European countries, and I expect it to be a smash throughout the world.
I don't own a piece of the song [although I have a handy catalog of pop/ Adult Contemporary tunes for those aspiring stars seeking a smash hit!!] thus I won't benefit in any manner from plugging "Satellite". I'm very keen to see as to whether this song CAN be a hit outside of Europe.
I know a hit song when I hear one, thus we will leave the rest to fate...
Whilst this contest has historically brought Abba and Celene Dion to the eyes & ears of the music-loving society outside of Europe, all so often the winning entry becomes a "one-hit wonder" within Europe.
This year, however, things are different...
Whilst casually watching the Eurovision semi-finals on television last Friday night, my attention was taken by Germany's entry in the contest. A song titled "Satellite" by a young lady named Lena, I was immediately hooked by the song's chorus. "This is a smash hit"; I made a mental note to myself.
Lo and behold, "Satellite" is the 2010 Eurovision Song Contest winner.
Out of curiosity, I undertook some research on this song. "Satellite" was written by some US-based songwriters, and it seems specifically for Germany's entry in the Contest. The tune has already been a hit in a handful of European countries, and I expect it to be a smash throughout the world.
I don't own a piece of the song [although I have a handy catalog of pop/ Adult Contemporary tunes for those aspiring stars seeking a smash hit!!] thus I won't benefit in any manner from plugging "Satellite". I'm very keen to see as to whether this song CAN be a hit outside of Europe.
I know a hit song when I hear one, thus we will leave the rest to fate...
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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?
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?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
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?
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?
Saturday, April 10, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)