Analysis of hits

Why is the song One by One by the Foo Fighters more of a hit than Nation of Slaves by Joseph Arthur? Are fans more or less inclined to fall into the hands of artists that utilize faked emotion as a tool when writing hits? Moreover, should we as songwriters challenge our fans or just give them what they want when they want it? I just want some random thoughts on these questions.

Never heard of either of those.

Who but the songwriter really knows if an emotion is faked? A song may convincingly express a subject or emotion that a lot of people can relate to, and that's how it becomes a hit. Whether or not it sounds "fake" is in the ear of the beholder.

To answer your last question, I'd say a little bit of both.

it's the songwriter's choice.

I'd like to challenge myself, forget about any fans I might have. HAHA the thought of having fans makes me laugh.

In the end, you cannot second guess what people will like. All you can do is write songs that you are passionate about, which in turn will make your performance more passionate. People will either like it or not. If they don't, then accept it and move on.

You can of course become a flash in the pan with pre-fab, processed music. It happens all the time. I'm too sexy for my songwriting. But the great artists create music that they believe in and put it out there to be accepted or not.

I'm all for giving them what they want when they want it.

Knowing what they want is an entirely different story.

And most of the time, I'm pretty sure they don't even exist. As far as I can tell, I listen to my music much more than any other single person, so I might as well try to make the majority of the audience happy.

One by One was actually a pretty big hit for the Foo Fighters. Joseph Arthur is a lesser known artist, but he got his start because Peter Gabriel discovered him. You should check him out.

Also I like a lot of the stuff everyone is saying.

I'm not even sure how to write towards what I think other people will like. I mean, I probably ditch two out of every three ideas I come up with anyway. When I come up with something I think is viable for my band I usually pretty much run with it. Although I suppose the music I write - classic-sounding rock & roll & blues - isn't really all that divisive or challenging.

How do you guys approach writing new material? Do you write towards a particular sound or type of song - or just sit down with the instrument and see what happens?

Because composition is SO important for achieving a good mix, I'm trying to more and more to very early on start thinking of the instrumentation, and how they will fit spatially and frequency-wise. But the song itself seems always driven by 'thugh idea' (boy meets dog, boy goes to jail because Alabama law is a little sticky in that area, etc...), which drives the lyrics, which drives the nature of the song (upbeat, hard, gentle, poppy, perky, etc...) and then try to think of some sort of instrumentation that fits that and which will make for a good mix in the end.

For instrumentation/instrumental composition, I listen to other people's stuff a lot, on my studio systems where it sounds really good, and I get all kinds of ideas. Take this aspect of that song, and that aspect of that song, and put those things together to create something new.

One option is to just use the basic instrumentation of a song you like. If you write an original song, it won't be obvious that you based in some other song (unless it's one of really unusual instrumentation), and it gives you something to measure your success at creating a mix of that sort. It won't sound like the source tune, since it's be your own song, but it gives you something to shoot for. For me, I think that's a very useful thing at this point in my progress.

I guess it all comes down to why we write music and what we want to achieve by it.

For me personally, it's all about stressing out, create a bridge so all that creative energy I have within can come out.

Also I am completely one hundred percent addicted to the process. It's simply the best thing in the world to go from scratch to a (almost) complete song. That proces gives me the kick. Afterwards, even though I stille like to listen to my finished material, it kind of becomes a relic, something that reminds me of that period in my life - still quite alive in my mind, but static. A song in the proces of being created is vibrant and dynamic and it has my complete attention (which by the way tends to anger my wife!).

I like it when people comment on my music and of course it's really cool if people actually likes the music. But I have found, that I am equally pleased, if people listen to the music and explains to me what it is they don't like, what works and what doesn't. Maybe it all comes down to the fact, that I like the idea of people investing time in listening to the music?!?

Anyhow, the audience-factor is not really comparable to the proces-factor. So even though I like audience, I could basically do without it, if I were pressed. The proces, on the other hand, hopefully will stick with me untill we are both buried together.

i wouldn't say foo fighters are fake. i personaly want say any stuff like they're {censored} or can't play about bands. i might say i don't like it or don't understand it. they have done something and made a name for themselfs/got rich, where as i haven't (yet) so i have no room to slag them off.

Do you see the Foo Fighters as corporate rock? Of course they're successful. But if you heard the latest Foo Fighters and they were unknowns...

...would the music sound different to you? Would the singing sound fake? Or the fact that he can craft a very good pop tune in the guise of heavy rock, does this bother you?

Personally, I think Foo Fighters are very good at what they do. I'm not particularly a fan but I wish I had some of their skill at putting things together as well as they do.

Should songwriters cater to their listeners? Well, a lot of times a good songwriter/artist has taste that is in line with their audience.

The Foo Fighters are a definitive band who've influenced music heavily, maybe more than any other recent band (I'll leave that one open to discussion). They've got an amazing sound and are not remotely corporate rock (have you heard them live? They are extremely talented musicians.)

I've never heard of Joseph Arthur, I may check out his stuff. I'm sure he's also very talented, but just because he may be a great musician, that doesn't make the Foo Fighters any less capable. I think they do a great job of putting real emotion into their music, even if some songs are more 'poppy' than others.

To get away from those artists and answer your questions, I don't think there's a real way to tell between 'faked' emotion or real emotion. Emotion is always a part of music, but if we don't feel that emotional connection to the music, we can easily say it's just being faked. I don't believe any artist will ever admit that they fake emotion into their music, because, quite frankly, they don't. All artists put an emotional element into their music. It's up to us to hear it.

My songwriting has matured a lot in the past year and it's still getting better. I use to write really complex and mathy stuff based around themes ie Dream Theater with a Black Flag punk rock guitar tone. But now my motto is simple is better. I still incorporate a lot of jazz chords and inverse chords into my playing though. And no matter how much I try to dumb it down, a lot of people still think my work is somewhat alien. But I figure if I can't write a song or riff in 5-10 mins. than there's too much going into it and I could be overcomplicating things. Like Thom Yorke said, if it takes more than a few minutes than it's too much and you've already passed the limit. But if I hear something distinctly in my head and have a vision I will go ahead and pursue it regardless of time limits. To a short extent I don't mind giving potential fans what they want to hear. But I still feel it's important to challenge fans because it's important to challenge society as a whole period. The minute people become complacent we're {censored}ed.

As far as the Foo Fighters are concerned, I think you either really like them or you don't. I certainly don't feel they're one of the definitive bands of our generation. That's a complete overstatement. If Echoes and Silence was their debut album I believe the public perception of the Foo Fighters would be much different. That album is not bad, but there's nothing new or innovative on it. And if that truly is a definitive album of our generation then that's sad.

I was referring more to the Color and the Shape, that might be the most definitive Foo album, though if you're as crazy a Foo fan as I am you'll know how they've progressed dramatically from post-grunge into their modern sound. But this is kind of besides the point of the thread so I'll stop talking about them now