Jump to content

How Much Does It Cost to Make A Hit Song?


Ernest Buckley

Recommended Posts

  • CMS Author

On the other hand, if you write a great song yourself and record it yourself, perhaps with the help of some friends who can really play and sing, and you make a cute video of it and put it on YouTube, you may not have a hit song for under $1,000 but you might become a hit artist that someone then spends a million dollars on your next song.

You can't predict that any of this will happen, but you can certainly try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Anderton View Post
Well, given the performance of Man Down, it seems money can't buy a hit song any more than it can buy a winning candidate.

When is the world going to realize that people aren't as easily manipulated as they think?
The problem with having a winning formula is you STILL need that "X-factor" which you can't buy or create. Sure, Rihanna was created by formula, but that same formula has been applied to 1,000s of other artists who never achieved her degree of success. Clearly she has SOMETHING special going on that you can't just drop into the mix or paste onto her skirt. And the same formula applied to "Man Down" that failed was applied to many other songs she recorded that DID go on to be big hits.

The formula works, or it wouldn't be called such. It just isn't guaranteed. And someday that formula will tire out and somebody else will stumble upon a new one.

I don't think any of this is really anything new though. Berry Gordy and Motown epitomized the idea of a workable formula and even managed to create some classic records and artists in the process. I don't know that it's necessarily a bad thing for the music business to operate in such a way. But it sure does seem like it sucks when you're on the outside looking in....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by guido61 View Post
I don't think any of this is really anything new though. Berry Gordy and Motown epitomized the idea of a workable formula and even managed to create some classic records and artists in the process. I don't know that it's necessarily a bad thing for the music business to operate in such a way.
The Brill building writers worked in the same way. But, neither they or the Motown production line sucked all the financial oxygen out of the room, where record companies ended up going for an all-or-nothing, "blockbuster" mentality.

If a record company had a million bucks to spend on promotion, it was more likely they'd spend $50,000 on 20 artists and see which ones "stuck" rather than betting everything on one horse. That ended up giving the scene more variety and vitality; the comparative lack thereof is my objection to the current system.

But it sure does seem like it sucks when you're on the outside looking in....
It's not that wonderful on the inside, because most, if not all, of those expenses are coming out of her royalties before she gets a penny...or ends up in debt to the record company.

If you had a $10,000 advance and $20,000 in studio time, you didn't have to sell that many records to get into the black. Try getting into the black when you owe the record company $800,000...and try collecting it when they decide not to pay you, or stall. I'm still owed a considerable amount of royalties, but it's spread over several companies, many of which by now have been sold, re-sold, or gone out of business. To track all of those varied income sources down, find the right people to sue, and pay for lawyers - only to find out that I'm number 5,670 in the list of creditors - is simply not worth the aggravation.

I wish her well, but this whole thing smells of a headline 20 years from now on some web site's Entertainment page about "famous singer from the 2010s now living in a trailer in Arizona."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Anderton View Post
Well, given the performance of Man Down, it seems money can't buy a hit song any more than it can buy a winning candidate.

When is the world going to realize that people aren't as easily manipulated as they think?
I think the point of the piece (it's been a while but I posted about it in a few places when it came out) is that those are more or less typical costs for a major release. Once they get it out into the marketplace, paving the way with all the videos, planted/paid for reviews and articles, fake viral marketing, and promotional 'considerations' to DJs and program directors -- once the pumps are 'primed' for the standard hit making machinery -- then the song still has to win over its targeted sector. (And, as the article notes, after all that dough, after all the songwriting camps, all the promo and 'considerations,' and all the rest, the release STILL didn't go anywhere.)

Those expenditures don't guarantee success.

They're just the standard starting place for a mainstream, major commercial release.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth

View Post

The studio costs for writing camp seems unnecessary. Doesn't every pro writer have a home studio by now?

 

Agreed. Also, to be honest, although it pains me to say this as a writer myself, whether a song becomes a hit or not seems to most often have little in common with the pedigree of the writers or the "quality" of the song (however you might choose to measure that). I suspect they'd do just as well with a bunch of untried (but somewhat talented) amateurs writing the songs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Anderton View Post
Well, given the performance of Man Down, it seems money can't buy a hit song any more than it can buy a winning candidate.

When is the world going to realize that people aren't as easily manipulated as they think?
Evidence speaks for itself. Look who won the election...icon_lol.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
So is the article about how much it costs to make a hit song, or about how much it costs to make a song a hit?
Good point. The sad part to me is the effort that goes into trying to artificially create something that people will like. The industry seems to have forgotten that a simple song sung from the heart of a songwriter is still going to move hearts, and last time I looked, it didn`t cost much.

Peace,
EB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley View Post
Good point. The sad part to me is the effort that goes into trying to artificially create something that people will like. The industry seems to have forgotten that a simple song sung from the heart of a songwriter is still going to move hearts, and last time I looked, it didn`t cost much.

Peace,
EB
Can anyone come up with examples of recent big hits recorded on small budgets? I'm just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Philter

View Post

Can anyone come up with examples of recent big hits recorded on small budgets? I'm just curious.

 

I honestly don`t keep track of that sort of thing, all I`m saying is that I find the whole "writing camp" to be a litte over the top. Granted, it`s been going on forever but it seems to me that some of our greatest songs come from someone sitting down and pouring out their hearts... alone with paper, pen and a guitar/piano.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley View Post
I honestly don`t keep track of that sort of thing, all I`m saying is that I find the whole "writing camp" to be a litte over the top. Granted, it`s been going on forever but it seems to me that some of our greatest songs come from someone sitting down and pouring out their hearts... alone with paper, pen and a guitar/piano.
A "writing camp" specific for one artist/album is interesting for sure. But yes, similar things have been going on forever. Some of our greatest songs HAVE come from people just sitting down and pouring out their hearts. But many have also come from "factory" songwriters trying to either write for a particular purpose --- think Tin Pan Alley and Broadway musicals -- or trying to meet certain quotas -- think the Brill Building and Motown.

Obviously there's room (and a need) for both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth

View Post

The studio costs for writing camp seems unnecessary. Doesn't every pro writer have a home studio by now?

 

I think it's a matter of providing a suitable working environment. When writers are sitting around in a studio with someone else at the controls ready to hit the Record button when a writer gets an idea, they may be more productive than if a few of them are sitting around in someone's home studio. Just a thought. But they probably don't have to book a $25,000 per day studio. I didn't even know there were any more of those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley View Post
I honestly don`t keep track of that sort of thing, all I`m saying is that I find the whole "writing camp" to be a litte over the top. Granted, it`s been going on forever but it seems to me that some of our greatest songs come from someone sitting down and pouring out their hearts... alone with paper, pen and a guitar/piano.
I would really like to sit in on one of those project-oriented writing camps though... All the creative magic of a focus group made out of bored, only-in-it-for-the-money hacks.

That sounds like a real hoot.


_______________


Now... all the expected cynicism out of the way... wink.gif

I do think that -- for some writers at some, perhaps many points in their careers -- writers' workshop type environments can provide valuable insights into the writing process and can definitely help improve the craft in songs that are discussed.

I don't want to brag on the regulars in the HC Songwriting forum -- but they have created what I think is a very nurturing, productive environment. It doesn't necessarily work for everyone all the time -- and songwriters, even more than many other creatives, are an irascible, moody lot at times -- but I think an environment where a writer can get constructive critique from his fellow practitioners can offer a lot of value to the individual -- and the group.

smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Anderton View Post
The Brill building writers worked in the same way. But, neither they or the Motown production line sucked all the financial oxygen out of the room, where record companies ended up going for an all-or-nothing, "blockbuster" mentality.

If a record company had a million bucks to spend on promotion, it was more likely they'd spend $50,000 on 20 artists and see which ones "stuck" rather than betting everything on one horse. That ended up giving the scene more variety and vitality; the comparative lack thereof is my objection to the current system.
I attribute a lot of that to the nationalization/globalization of the industry. I think what gave the scene most of it's variety in the past was that music was made and promoted on a much more local/regional level. And therefore you had the "Detroit" sound, the "Philly" sound, the "Memphis" sound, etc. The Beach Boys could come out of Southern California with their surf sound because they weren't initially worried about if it would be successful in St. Louis or not.

Now it's all about finding songs and sounds that have instant broad appeal, so the obvious reaction is to follow even more bland models. What Rihanna does works worldwide. Why be concerned about lyrical depth when a huge part of your intended audience doesn't understand English anyway?

Movies have suffered the same fate: they need to play in Croatia as well as in San Diego so lots of action and visuals and simple dialogue that translates easily.

But I think the Brill Building and Motown writers WERE working in strict formulas and working with a "blockbuster" mentality to a large degree. Produce no hits and they'd soon be out of a job. Wthin their specfic universes there was certainly a LOT of carbon-copies and repetition going on. And a lot of chasing the current sounds and trends of the given moment. There were just a lot more smaller "universes" back then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Read it and weep...?" What's the point? It's the same old BS as ever: the producer doles out favors to cronies hoping that name-association and other connections will ultimately result in the gatekeepers promoting the product. Sell enough, and the artist - who you'll note does *not*, unlike everyone else involved in the project, get paid to show up - *might* actually make a few bucks. It's funny, this "writing camp" model even screws the artist out of a songwriting credit, which is one of the most important ways that an artist sees income from their work.

The resulting music is the aural equivalent of vanilla jello. It seems novel, but turns out to have neither lasting substance nor nutritional value and the artificial flavoring leaves a funny taste. Everyone involved in the project is there for the payday. I'm sure no one involved hears their work on the radio and thinks, "wow, that was inspired!"

I guess the main question I really want to ask is this: Would *you* want to have a hit single if it meant that someone else did ninety-nine percent of the work and reaped ninety-nine percent of the profits? Especially in the common case that the resulting product has nothing to do with your musical talents or interests...?

The secondary question, of course, is: Why do you care? How many musicians here have any interest in striving to be a pop star?

I'll point out that this "you have to be the eight-hundred pound gorilla in the room to make any money in the business" is common to most industries, not just entertainment. Yet, somehow, motivated (and, let's not pretend: lucky) entrepreneurs manage to succeed in new business ventures on a regular basis. Think about that, and follow your muse. Maybe you'll get lucky, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by guido61 View Post
I attribute a lot of that to the nationalization/globalization of the industry. I think what gave the scene most of it's variety in the past was that music was made and promoted on a much more local/regional level. And therefore you had the "Detroit" sound, the "Philly" sound, the "Memphis" sound, etc. The Beach Boys could come out of Southern California with their surf sound because they weren't initially worried about if it would be successful in St. Louis or not.

Now it's all about finding songs and sounds that have instant broad appeal, so the obvious reaction is to follow even more bland models. What Rihanna does works worldwide. Why be concerned about lyrical depth when a huge part of your intended audience doesn't understand English anyway?

Movies have suffered the same fate: they need to play in Croatia as well as in San Diego so lots of action and visuals and simple dialogue that translates easily.
Excellent, excellent points. "The World is Not Enough" smile.gif

But I think the Brill Building and Motown writers WERE working in strict formulas and working with a "blockbuster" mentality to a large degree. Produce no hits and they'd soon be out of a job. Wthin their specfic universes there was certainly a LOT of carbon-copies and repetition going on. And a lot of chasing the current sounds and trends of the given moment. There were just a lot more smaller "universes" back then.
In a way yes, but it was (as I understand it) a much more playful environment than the "gotta have a hit that sells 1,000,000,000,000 copies or you're gonna die." I had some conversations with Eddie Holland during a period of time when my band almost signed with Motown, and whenever he mentioned songwriting, he talked about it from the standpoint of a formulaic business - but a way fun formulaic business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by TieDyedDevil View Post
The secondary question, of course, is: Why do you care?
It's entirely selfish...I want to hear inspired music from people, not assembly-line stuff. I'm a music junkie, so I'm always looking for a better high smile.gif

How many musicians here have any interest in striving to be a pop star?
I was lucky. I was just enough of a pop star to know I didn't want to be a bigger pop star. And I continue to be lucky, because I remain involved in music as a huge part of my life, and it's not dependent on looking good in spandex or being a babe with boobs.

Many of my contemporaries who were "pop stars" aren't any more, and have various ways to put food on the table. But, they often are more or less out of the music business, whereas I still feel very much a part of it...just not as a pop star.

I love being able to make music when I feel like it, and not have lawyers and accountants breathing down my neck. I'm thrilled that my cover version of "Black Market Daydreams" broke 1,000 views on my YouTube channel, and "When the Grid Goes Down" is getting there fast...and that someone sent me an email saying "Little Pieces" was his favorite. In a lot of ways, that gives me more satisfaction than a statement saying I'd sold 70,00 albums for that quarter.

Will I make any money from the stuff I put on YouTube? Well actually...yes, in a way. Making music is where all the articles, books, videos, and forum posts start smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...