For me, the Kashif book had the best info in it. What publishing companies actually do. What an actual contract (publishing, licensing, distribution, etc.) really has in it. How licensing cos. work. What all the various 'standard' clauses in a contract really mean, etc.
No hit songwriter or performer ever read a book about how to write a 'hit' song.
Below you kind of negate this statement by giving examples of top-artists who employ writers to write their material. The artists haven't read the books, but the writers I'm sure have, or at least study what has been succesful in the past. Here are some more #1 hits that employ other writers.
Wind Beneath My Wings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Beneath_My_WingsThis is How We Roll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_How_We_RollQUOTE
As musicians we have the most accessible, pertinent and concrete information at our fingertips for free, 24/7/365 ...
other hit songs. Copy them, tear them apart, study them. That's what successful songwriters did/do. It's no accident that most every new hit artist (in all genres) in the beginning of their career sound at least a little bit and many times a lot like someone else or some other band. The truly good ones then evolve into their own thing ... eventually to influence and be 'copied' by someone else.
I think that pure pop sensibilities have to be exactly that -
sensibilities in that they have to be sensible (what are folks into now?) and
authentic (do
you dig what you're trying to do?). I don't believe that you can write a pop song by the numbers and sell it. You have to
believe it ... so that other folks will believe it.
*In my own personal experience I've always worked with and for artists that were I guess the 'exception to the rule' but some how seemed to sell records and fill a venue. Also, as a freelancer my musical eccentricities and quirky leanings are the things that get me gigs - go figure.
Here's another book that tracks one hit songwriter's personal development (what 'he' did - not necessarily what you should do) and he does discuss some nuts and bolts of song 'form' and even a bit of basic music theory.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/614772.Tunesmith It's particularly interesting because this guy had at least 20 top ten singles, a dozen platinum selling singles, two Grammys for best song and wrote for artists as diverse as Frank Sinatra, Toto and Johnny Cash.
None his hits follow the 'rules' of pop songwriting (other than just being great songs). Sometimes they're long. Some have odd-time measures. Non symmetrical bar structure. No chorus. All chorus. Weird key changes. Title never mentioned in the song (a ton of Dylan and Neil Young tunes do that too), etc., etc., etc.
Makes sense, though I'm betting you can categorize Sinatra/Toto and Cash as following one of the 6 song writing forms. I'll break apart a song from each and try to demonstrate it, if I'm right, or serve to knock down the theory if I'm wrong
Also, Murphy in his book makes the case that live performances at night-time are not the same as drive-time audiences. Night time audiences look for intimate settings, and really don't care so much about the song as the environment. He did a study on how people actually rate a night at a live event -
1. Cool personality on stage
2. great food
3. You're a great singer!
4...
5... nice song.
Drive-by audiences have a different expectation and criteria for listening than those at a bar at night.
I'm of the opinion so far that studying what other writers have done to result in top-hits will give you "those sensibilities", in so much as they were successful to create a hit
That's basically my premise for investigating Murphy's book.
And to be fair to the artist - I don't believe that adhering to a writing form hampers an artist's ability to create art. Shakespear could have written his works in any form and still accomplished amazing work because of his word-choices, and imagery, humor, irony, story telling, etc... not because of his paragraph structure.
People (listeners) have grown to expect certain song formulas (rhyme schemes, what happens after a solo, etc.) - and they feel a little less comfortable when a song steps outside of the what they have grown to expect. That doesn't mean you can't have a #1 hit - people are quirky, but historically speaking - it's rare - you just don't find it in #1 hits.
Just because you write in #1 hit form doesn't mean you'll have a #1 hit - that's also not my premise. But to contend for a #1 hit, it will need to conform to some rules, which is what my post is about.
Cheers!
So I did a quick survey of Toto - they had a top hit - Africa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa_(Toto_..._certificationsit adheres to the 4th (or 5th? can't remember without my notes!) form, almost verbatim
Vers/prechorus/chorus (title)/Bridge/chorus->out
It also adheres to the rule that the verse rhyme scheme is different than the chorus rhyme scheme, and that chorus (title line) not rhyme with anything in the chorus or verse - so that it stands out.
The rhyme scheme is:
Verse: ABAB
PreChorus: C
Chorus: AABC
I hear the drums echoing
tonightBut she hears only whispers of some quiet
conversationShe's coming in twelve-thirty
flightHer moonlit wings reflect the stars that guide me towards
salvationI stopped an old man along the
wayHoping to find some old forgotten words or ancient melodies
He turned to me as if to
say:Pre-Chorus
"Hurry boy, it's waiting there for you"
[Chorus:]
It's gonna take a lot to drag me away from
youThere's nothing that a hundred men or more could ever
doI bless the rains down in
Africa -- Title - no rhyme
Gonna take some time to do the things we never
hadThe wild dogs cry out in the
nightAs they grow restless longing for some solitary
companyI know that I must do what's
rightSure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the
SerengetiI seek to cure what's deep inside, frightened of this thing that I've become
[Repeat chorus]
[Instrumental break]
Hurry boy, she's waiting there for you
[Repeat chorus]