i'm with spaceduck on this one, production has really become a major part of any modern hit. although it could be argued that is simply part of the process now, on many albums you can tell which songs got the special treatment and which ones are the B-sides. those with the special treatment get radio play, the rest are album-filler. whereas with older music (and i've only listened to some of it, i wasn't alive back then ) you don't really hear that extra "sumpn-sumpn" on the hits.

also a couple people have pointed out the envy factor of this thread - i would respond to that by saying that if being a one-hit wonder is anything like "that thing you do" then i'll pass on that - seriously. it's just my personality, i'd rather be relatively unknown (as opposed to being completely unknown like i am now ) but have a committed fan-base than break out with one hit song and disappear. being a one-hit wonder would make the irrelevance of my musical "career" pretty inescapable (where as now it's an open-ended question ), and that's not something i'm interested in.

ORIGINAL: Spaceduck

ORIGINAL: Cromberger

I don't feel like "production", per se, is very important to the success of a hit song by a OHW or anyone else. "Louie, Louie" was recorded in the garage of one of the band members fathers---and this was in the mid-1960's. What is important is a *great* pop song with a great chorus and very high energy that makes people smile.

I would totally agree with you IF we were back in the mid-60s. Back then, a song recorded in mono was enough for most listeners. But I don't think it's really fair to apply that to today's music. I'd say Sgt. Peppers was the turning point, raising the bar and telling the world, "you don't have to settle for Louie Louie recordings anymore!". Since then it's been a totally different ballgame. Production has become an art form inseparably linked to today's music. And rightly so! Half the fun of being a musician is monkeying around in the studio.

That said, I do agree that a catchy chorus and high energy is essential to a pop hit. I definitely don't mean to downplay that component. Also it helps if you can bribe the radio stations into giving you heavy rotation. If they shove it down their listeners' ears long enough, any song will be catchy.

Hi, Spaceduck,

I would totally agree with you IF we were back in the mid-60s.

You mean we're not? ;>) It's funny because I played at the High Sierra Music Festival over the July 4th weekend and I'd have *sworn* I'd been teleported back to 1968. Amazing. ;>)

Back then, a song recorded in mono was enough for most listeners. But I don't think it's really fair to apply that to today's music. I'd say Sgt. Peppers was the turning point, raising the bar and telling the world, "you don't have to settle for Louie Louie recordings anymore!". Since then it's been a totally different ballgame. Production has become an art form inseparably linked to today's music. And rightly so! Half the fun of being a musician is monkeying around in the studio.

I might argue that the infamous Phil Spector singles were a real turning point, prior to the Beatles Sgt. Pepper, at least in terms of arrangement/production.

But, in reality, except for the many pop hits that were churned out like cars off of a production line in the early days for teenie-bopper consumption, "production" has always been at the highest level of it's technological limits. Meaning, the production on records was always as good as the technology of the day allowed. There are some absolutely spectacular mono recordings that demonstrate the very apex of the technology of the day. I think of things like Frank Sinatra records, some of the Beach Boys stuff, and so on. So, in that sense, production hasn't really gotten better, only more sophisticated technologically. What can be done with a good DAW is certainly way beyond what could be done in the old days with tape and a razor blade (and I spent way too much time with grease pencils and razor blades).

But, what I guess I was trying to say in my post is that the production, itself, isn't, in my opinion, what sells the song, whether it's from a OHW or from Peter Gabriel. It's the song and the arrangement that sells the song. Great production values certainly don't hurt, of course. But given that so much music these days is heard via MP3's, boom-boxes, and other inferior sonic media, it's hard to conceive that anyone other than possibly musicians and recordists pay that much attention to great production values.

BTW, I totally agree with you that production has become an art form of it's own. It probably always has been when it was done by the right people. Monkeying around in the studio is also a great thing, though in my personal opinion, what usually results from such activities are more arrangement-oriented than pure production improvements. It's possible that your definition of "production" and mine are slightly different. In any case, it's an interesting topic and I mean no offense whatsoever in my reply. Sorry to have rambled on so long.

If they shove it down their listeners' ears long enough, any song will be catchy.

I've always thought the same thing. Repetition trumps art every time in the commercial music biz. ;>)

Best regards,
Bill

ORIGINAL: Crg

This whole thread has been focused on One Hit Wonders, a term I detest by the way. But aren't we really talking about a successful song? One that sold a lot of copies?

Hi, Crg,

Well, I think that "one hit wonders" refers to the *bands* that wrote/played the hit songs, then never had another hit and disappeared from the music scene rather quickly. Naturally, you are right about the songs, themselves: They are usually very popular and sell tons of copies. The fact that the bands that wrote/performed the songs disappear may be due to many considerations not related to their musical talent, as we all know. It's tough to keep a band together, even one that has had a hit record, for a variety of reasons.

A lot of bands-artists-performers did really well and never got the one hit wonder label paisted on their resume because they they didn't hit the top 10 again.

This is very true. But they probably didn't get the moniker "one hit wonder" because the band either never had a major hit, or they continued to survive as a band after their only big hit. There's plenty of successful bands that have *never* had a hit in the top ten. But, in my mind, to have been a OHW, you had to have had a hit in the top ten and you had to have disappeared from the music scene shortly thereafter. Bands like Rush, Frank Zappa, Grateful Dead, etc., certainly could never be considered OHW's and they all have had great, long term careers without having very many top-ten hits.

I suppose you could attribute that to a following, but in reality the silent majority buys what they like from who they like. With the wishy washy record company executives who thought they'd decide what America and the world likes on the ropes due to the influx of internet music and the Indie movement.

The silent majority could only buy what was made available to them by the "wishy washy" record company wonks in the past, of course. This is, as you point out, changing, thank goodness.

Yet, the chances of any band having a long-term career, with many albums charting high, seems lower now than it was during the height of the record company's power (the sixties/seventies/eighties). Record companies simply don't put the resources into many acts that would allow them to have long-term careers. If the first album tanks, you're gone. And, I don't think the independents have the resources to promote bands over the course of multiple albums until they hit their stride, as was common in the "old days". And, let's face it, home-made productions, while they are certainly having an effect on the current music biz, have not yet become a viable means of making a living for most artists, let alone giving them the opportunity to have national top-ten hits.

It is genius that now will prevail. Can you make it work for you?

Well, I'm not a genius, so I doubt I can make it work for me. ;>) I'm not sure that genius, and there *is* genius in making a great pop record, is going to carry the day. I believe it's *money*, plain and simple that always has, and always will, determine who will become a top-ten hit maker. Whether you're a home recordist or signed to a major label, you are very unlikely to have a major hit song unless someone is putting significant money into making it a big hit. Perhaps I'm just a cynical old buzzard, but that's the way I see it and there's certainly a lot of precedent in this regard that backs up my theory. Nevertheless, I do like the fact that almost anyone can now make a reasonable record in their own home, given enough experience and know-how. Sooner or later, this may change everything about the way music is marketed to the masses. And that's probably a very good thing, in my opinion.

Best regards,
Bill

I think you've (all) persuaded me that OHWs are misnomers and/or obsolete ... in today's elusive world.