Latest on MJJC

Is having hits really important?

DuranDuran

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
12,605
Points
113
AD01-01bk.gif

Some people seem to put a lot of emphasis on what is popular or number 1 or that somebody has sold more than someone else. I'm a fan of music, not a fan of hits, so labels like "one hit wonder" or "King, Queen, Prince, etc. of such & such" mean nothing to me. I don't like something just because a bunch of other people bought it or because it was on the radio. Having a hit or selling a lot of records mostly has to do with promotion and how much money and power a record label has. If the Thriller album came out on a label like Blue Note, Verve, or Malaco, it wouldn't have done anything because they don't have the distribution muscle or money to get songs on the radio and make videos. A label with big money can make almost anything a "hit", and they have. It doesn't mean it's better than something that is not on the radio. Being nominated for awards or winning them is no indicator of quality either, just music business politics.
 
Musical taste is 100% subjective. Success is 100% objective. They cannot be intertwined or you'll end up in an endless paradox. I think hits are important for promotion because without promotion there would be no recognition, without recognition there would be no success, no success means no more material from the artist. And this is just ONE of the reasons why "hits" are important.

Promotion, or whatever do not (or better yet should not) influence personal taste, I definitely agree on that though. The great thing about MJ is that he outstanding both commercially and critically
 
ASIS said:
I think hits are important for promotion because without promotion there would be no recognition, without recognition there would be no success, no success means no more material from the artist. And this is just ONE of the reasons why "hits" are important.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the pop field, but in other genres like classical or blues, which aren't dependent on hits or high record sales, many of these acts have more longevity than the Top 40 mainstream acts. Hard rock acts like Rush, Metallica, KISS, Black Sabbath, or Led Zepplin never really had any hit singles or got mainstream radio play, but yet are really popular. B.B. King only had one really big hit record "The Thrill Is Gone" but has been performing since the late 1940s and is still touring today. He's also known around the world. Out of all the thousands of musicians and performers at any time, very few actually get radio play or sell much, and depend on touring like jazz acts or bluegrass bands. There's also the audience that like non-mainstream acts and if their band/singer happens to get widespread success they quit listening to them or say they "sold out". This happened to acts like Fleetwood Mac, Genesis, Miles Davis, George Benson, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Metallica, Jefferson Airplane/Starship, and the Black Eyed Peas. This is also why some people praise John Lennon & George Harrison, who didn't seek hit records and wrote about what they believed in over Paul McCartney who sought popularity with "Silly Love Songs".
 
I agree with you to a point. I w s just readinng this morning about George Michael who said that Michael's fame hampered his creativity. his reason for saying so was that his successive albums never sold as much as Thriller.

Even so, that doesn't mean he was no longer creative. I happen to like Dangerous more than the other albums, but that is just my opinion. I do think when emphasis is only placed on sales volume you put yourself in a predicament where you may leave off trying to invent but just simply try to sustain.

I do think that sales are important only in terms of exposure. There are some artists that are not so very popular, but without some exposure, I would have never known about them. I guess ideally you would like to have creative integrity, and huge record sales.
 
I see.. when you meant "hits" you meant like real hit singles. Yeah artist really don't need that at all. I thought you were saying "hits" as in popularity as a whole but I completely get what you're saying.
 
Helpful, yes. Important, no.

As mentioned, B.B. King is probably the greatest acclaimed blues artist and blues guitarist ever. Lots of older acts never have hits anymore but still tour and have albums that do well. It's just not necessary. And radio is a dying form, it seems. I used to listen to the radio not just for the music, but for the personalities. It seems like there's less songs and less personality on the radio these days.

Most of my favorite artists get little or no airplay.
 
I don't think so no but I think it depends on what the artist wants. If they want a hit single then sure.
 
DuranDuran said:
I'm a fan of music, not a fan of hits, so labels like "one hit wonder" or "King, Queen, Prince, etc. of such & such" mean nothing to me. I don't like something just because a bunch of other people bought it or because it was on the radio.
Click to expand...

applause.gif


Unfortunately it seems like having hits is important. If you were an artist, wouldn't you want your music to reach as many listeners as possible? Not necessarily a major pop hit; could be a dance, jazz, blues, [insert genre] 'hit'. Just having that (deserved) recognition within your niche. Though as ASIS said - it's all subjective and therein lies the problem.

But in my opinion, uniquely talented artists deserve the recognition whether it's defined in "hits", through an award, or just appearing on some talk show.
 
There are plenty of song that I listen too, some from people who sadly disappeared after recording one album. Some songs I listen to, the mainstream radio listener hasn't heard of them. I love finding classic soul songs that fit in this category and listening to them. It's pretty fun.

Unfortunately in the music business having hits is important but it doesn't mean that the person with hits has talent though. And there have been plenty of people who still continue to tour even after not having hits for a number of decades.
 
CandyKamaine said:
And there have been plenty of people who still continue to tour even after not having hits for a number of decades.
Click to expand...
The thing about performers like this (such as The Rolling Sones), is that the audience only wants to hear those old hits, and not any new music they might have released. This is the case even with Michael. He couldn't get away with a tour only performing album songs like "Speed Demon" or forgotten stuff like "Enjoy Yourself", and ignoring "Billie Jean" or "Black Or White". Sure they make a lot of money on these tours, but I'm pretty sure Mick Jagger isn't that excited about singing "Satisfaction" for the billionth time, lol.
 
That's what REALLY sucks about Mike... he hardly mixed his material up in the last 20 years. It got to the point where even single hits like Dirty Diana and Remember The Time were rarities. Now he's gone and we'll never get the pleasure of hearing some of those funky Jackson jams or non-single cuts live. When I was watching "This Is It" and MJ randomly busted out in Speechless, I was like "Why the heck didn't you do this from time to time on your shows?" I hear songs like "Everybody" and "I Am Love" and I'm just like "Damn... I'd kill to see him do these live just once".

Thank goodness there's still some older jam acts around who will do hits but mix their material up all the time.
 
I think that in popular music today they're selling singles, and not albums.
I mean, we still have some artists that sell a mill or two - but mostly is about getting that smash song.
They need a gimmick that will makes people capitulate to a level where they buy the song from itunes, learns the dance to the song, and getting the music licensed to as many TV shows/movies as possible - which in the end will lead up to touring.

Rihanna didn't get her biggest break until she dropped the smash "Umbrella".
It's a was a perfect timing of a song that you have to capitulate to, at the same time she dropped the video where she was naked in.

In the end of the day the whole music business is like a big gimmick, and Michael knew that.
That man was a master mind when it came to promotion.
 
No, artists don't have to have them but it is nice when lots of people know the words to your songs. There don't seem to be any more classics like back in the day. I think the 80's was the last decade to produce megastars. Modern technology like the internet minimalized artists impact and sales. As much as I enjoy the net, I must say it has done so much harm to the music industry and artists in general.
 
Yes, esp. when you're a singer and performer. I can't imagine how anybody could go up to the stage and start singing when he or she don't have no hits the audience can sing along. If you have to depend on others' hits, you would feel sad.
I'm from South Korea where many people are crazy about singing among all the forms of enjoying music and many hits are the kind of songs people can easily sing along. Many foreign artists feel pleasantly surprised when they come here and perform for the first time. They didn't even know where my country is or just didn't know much about it, but after doing a show or two, they sound grateful in interviews cuz the crowd memorize the English lyrics and sing their songs aloud or at least try hard with limited English proficiency.
 
helena22 said:
I can't imagine how anybody could go up to the stage and start singing when he or she don't have no hits the audience can sing along.
Click to expand...
What if the act performs instrumental music? There's nothing to sing along to. No one sings along to an opera performance either, the audience just sits there and watch.
 
Hmm yeh I see what you're saying. Just because something is a hit doesn't determine if it is quality. Look what happens with any artist who is invited to perform on the X Factor..a song which was already available to buy suddenly gets a surge in downloads after the performance on the show. As for the contestants on the shows, the winner of these talent shows always gets to number one.. and then in a lot of cases fades away forever.

As for winning awards, did you hear what 50 cent said recently about the Grammys, he said ..

50 Cent slams Grammys
Dec. 9, 2009, 11:33 AM EST

WENN
Rapper 50 Cent "couldn't care less" about the Grammy Awards - because artists whose record companies spend money on the ceremony will be the ones who take home the trophies.
The hip-hop star, who has been nominated for 13 Grammys but never won, has dismissed the upcoming 2010 prize-giving as the "Beyoncé and Taylor Swift show", as both singers are nominated for three awards each.
And 50 Cent is adamant the only way to win is to put on an expensive production at the January show. Photos: 50 Cent

He tells MTV.com, "Man, f**k the Grammys! I couldn't care less about the Grammy Awards.
"It'll be the Beyoncé and Taylor Swift show. I guess they'll both be performing at the awards show, which means their record companies will be spending money to raise the production values of the entire show. And when you spend that kind of money you're supposed to get trophies." The "In da Club" hitmaker previously expressed his distaste for the Grammys at the 2004 ceremony when he stormed the stage after losing out on the Best New Artist award to Evanescence.
Click to expand...
 
^^^^That's not really a secret. Most award shows work that way. That's why I never take any of them seriously. As far as the Grammys go, the judging committee don't actually listen to everything that is nominated. Also the payoffs is also why only the big acts get broadcast and other catagories like "Best Polka Recording" is not shown on TV.
 
yes they are. don't enter the music business unless you are about hits because that is the name of the game.

Miles Davis through Michael Jackson,through R.Kelly, through Romeo wanted and knew about a Hit and what it meant.

nobody is in that business for there health benefits which is alousy package by the way. all acts want a hit or as many as they can get if they tell you otherwise then i got some diamonds awaiting you in the backyard.

record companys ain't gonna put up with hit less acts especially nowadays. now having said all of that of course the awards are fixed as is soundscam, and those other manipulative systems in place,but it is what it is and always has been since payola is part of the vocabulary and n websters dictionary.
 
mistermaxxx said:
yes they are. don't enter the music business unless you are about hits because that is the name of the game.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of anybody having a hit with a zydeco record, a spoken word album, a death metal or screamo song, a children's story narration album, a sound effects record, a Neo-Nazi album, or a classical or opera LP. I've never seen an Elvis impersonator have a hit either, and there's some who actually release records like El Vez and Dread Zeppelin. Those genres and acts sell very little or only to a certain audience. They don't get mainstream airplay. It's like the movie business. Some movies are designed to be blockbusters and others are "art films". Also acts who are on small indie labels don't have hits, because they don't have the payola or distribution power to get them out there. There's literally thousands of albums released each year, all of them can't possibly become hits because that's too much material for radio. Some acts only perform music and don't make records, others are tribute acts like 'Lez Zeppelin', a female band who performs Led Zeppelin songs, '1964' who does The Beatles, and 'The Musical Box' who performs early Peter Gabriel era Genesis music. People don't join an orchestra to have a hit. So everybody who enters the music business is not seeking a hit. They perform music because they like it.
 
DuranDuran said:
What if the act performs instrumental music? There's nothing to sing along to. No one sings along to an opera performance either, the audience just sits there and watch.
Click to expand...
That's why I said "esp. as a singer and performer" meaning "for performers who are singers."
 
DuranDuran said:
The thing about performers like this (such as The Rolling Sones), is that the audience only wants to hear those old hits, and not any new music they might have released. This is the case even with Michael. He couldn't get away with a tour only performing album songs like "Speed Demon" or forgotten stuff like "Enjoy Yourself", and ignoring "Billie Jean" or "Black Or White". Sure they make a lot of money on these tours, but I'm pretty sure Mick Jagger isn't that excited about singing "Satisfaction" for the billionth time, lol.
Click to expand...

that's where great songwriting comes in. the fans on this site are people who are for and against hits. or those who say they can and cannot do without hits. MJ bridged that gap, and i'm sure he wasn't tired of Billie Jean, cus it's great songwriting. and from the sounds of what was going to happen on the This Is It tour, fans wanted to hear albums songs AND hits.
 
DuranDuran said:
I've never heard of anybody having a hit with a zydeco record, a spoken word album, a death metal or screamo song, a children's story narration album, a sound effects record, a Neo-Nazi album, or a classical or opera LP. I've never seen an Elvis impersonator have a hit either, and there's some who actually release records like El Vez and Dread Zeppelin. Those genres and acts sell very little or only to a certain audience. They don't get mainstream airplay. It's like the movie business. Some movies are designed to be blockbusters and others are "art films". Also acts who are on small indie labels don't have hits, because they don't have the payola or distribution power to get them out there. There's literally thousands of albums released each year, all of them can't possibly become hits because that's too much material for radio. Some acts only perform music and don't make records, others are tribute acts like 'Lez Zeppelin', a female band who performs Led Zeppelin songs, '1964' who does The Beatles, and 'The Musical Box' who performs early Peter Gabriel era Genesis music. People don't join an orchestra to have a hit. So everybody who enters the music business is not seeking a hit. They perform music because they like it.
Click to expand...
zydeco acts do sell and it is a numbers business. Cliffton Chenner,Buckwheat,etc.. are Pop for Zydeco and it does sell believe that.

MJ doing ET storybook won a Grammy and it did sell and it was attached with big names and a big budget. do I need to go on?

your thread falls flat on it's back because this is the Music business we are talking about not the almost or you can do what you want to do Business.

you think chris Brown's rant last week wasn't related to his sales and business taking a hit? naw by your logic chris Brown just sings to keep his hair cut real short and dress real clean and rent 300,000 dollar cars because he is a cool dude to some. yeah Ok whatever.

if you are working on a Major label and there is a thing called a budget then you have to recoup the Loot or take the boot. union scale paid Musicians aren't just playing for exercise they are getting some ends for there work.

the tribute acts you mention are covering Led Zepplin,Beatles and Genesis all acts who sold and are a brand name period. let me see a cover act make some coin covering Eddie Murphy, John Travolta and Joey lawrence's Hits for a Living??


indy acts want hits as well and don't think a Indy act dosn't want to hit it big.

again you are coming into my wheel house if you impersonate Elvis you got a steady gig and you are doing the drum roll please ........................................the Hits.

classical sells records. opera sells asks Andrea Boceili? Charolette Church? the three tenors?? all of that made billboards top 200 charts period.

sound effects could be in Moby territory.

Neo Nazi album you know good and well the labels don't want to be seen as Racist though i can point out various situations,but again.

it is a business about hits and selling bottom line.
 
helena22 said:
That's why I said "esp. as a singer and performer" meaning "for performers who are singers."
Click to expand...

saint elmo's fire, the theme from beverly hills cop, the theme from miami vice, the theme from hill street blues, were all instrumental hits that went to number 1 on the pop charts.
 
mistermaxxx said:
zydeco acts do sell and it is a numbers business. Cliffton Chenner,Buckwheat,etc.. are Pop for Zydeco and it does sell believe that.

MJ doing ET storybook won a Grammy and it did sell and it was attached with big names and a big budget. do I need to go on?

your thread falls flat on it's back because this is the Music business we are talking about not the almost or you can do what you want to do Business.

you think chris Brown's rant last week wasn't related to his sales and business taking a hit? naw by your logic chris Brown just sings to keep his hair cut real short and dress real clean and rent 300,000 dollar cars because he is a cool dude to some. yeah Ok whatever.

if you are working on a Major label and there is a thing called a budget then you have to recoup the Loot or take the boot. union scale paid Musicians aren't just playing for exercise they are getting some ends for there work.

the tribute acts you mention are covering Led Zepplin,Beatles and Genesis all acts who sold and are a brand name period. let me see a cover act make some coin covering Eddie Murphy, John Travolta and Joey lawrence's Hits for a Living??


indy acts want hits as well and don't think a Indy act dosn't want to hit it big.

again you are coming into my wheel house if you impersonate Elvis you got a steady gig and you are doing the drum roll please ........................................the Hits.

classical sells records. opera sells asks Andrea Boceili? Charolette Church? the three tenors?? all of that made billboards top 200 charts period.

sound effects could be in Moby territory.

Neo Nazi album you know good and well the labels don't want to be seen as Racist though i can point out various situations,but again.

it is a business about hits and selling bottom line.
Click to expand...

Well, you are boiling it down to the lowest common factor, which is the ability to support one's self with their art. I guess yes, sales are important, but are hits? In the traditional sense? Sure, they are important, but not necessary. I don't think music is purely a numbers business as you put it. I know jam bands who don't have radio hits (probably never have and never will) that make good money by working hard. I go to Dimeadozen and see bands I've never heard of who have never had hits that have dozens (sometimes hundreds) of bootlegs on the site, so they have a following.
 
Superstition said:
Well, you are boiling it down to the lowest common factor, which is the ability to support one's self with their art. I guess yes, sales are important, but are hits? In the traditional sense? Sure, they are important, but not necessary. I don't think music is purely a numbers business as you put it. I know jam bands who don't have radio hits (probably never have and never will) that make good money by working hard. I go to Dimeadozen and see bands I've never heard of who have never had hits that have dozens (sometimes hundreds) of bootlegs on the site, so they have a following.
Click to expand...
funny thing you got stevie Wonder in your picture avy and when he resigned with Motown back in the day for a then record 13 million dollar contract that was the biggest at the time.

ain't no lowest common factor it is a business period and it is about commerce dollars and sense.

ain't no but about it. sales and hits and if you think you have the game then you gotta bring it.

it is a numbers game. taylor swift and Beyonce sell as does Myley Cyrus,Alicia Keys,etc... they ain't up there for there health.

a following and being on a major are two different things. it is a business period.

cracks me up some folks on a Michael Jackson board debating the merits of Hits and sales? now that is funny.

nobody plays for free that is the bottom line and if you are able to have a hit and some type of success then you are gonna be jumping up and down like Little Richard after a fresh done Perm.WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
 
The discussion has veered off into sales, but it's really about hits. Many artists make most of their money by touring. I think we agree an artist needs to make money, but do they need a hit as the vehicle to get them there? It's a massive help, but look at how many successful bands get no play at all on mainstream radio.

You're naming a bunch of top acts, but obviously there are people who enjoy their work and make money without that success, or hits.
 
Superstition said:
The discussion has veered off into sales, but it's really about hits. Many artists make most of their money by touring. I think we agree an artist needs to make money, but do they need a hit as the vehicle to get them there? It's a massive help, but look at how many successful bands get no play at all on mainstream radio.

You're naming a bunch of top acts, but obviously there are people who enjoy their work and make money without that success, or hits.
Click to expand...
hits equal sales. they go hand in hand usually.

you tour with songs that the buying public knows and that comes from what Alex? what is a Hit song? that is right for 500 dollars.

successful bands lets see Bon Jovi, Green Day, metalica, Creed,goo goo dolls,doughtery(Misspelled) i mean do share and tell me these successful bands.

i wonder when it was wrong to want hits again? By the way Billobard magazine charts the mainstream acts and the heartseekers and the unknowns on the come up to making it.

bottom line the industry has a lock on the known and unknown and if you think I'm lying I'm old enough to remember when Myspace was a indy joe blow site that now is big time corperate. peace
 
mistermaxxx said:
it is a numbers game. taylor swift and Beyonce sell as does Myley Cyrus,Alicia Keys,etc... they ain't up there for there health.
Click to expand...
So you're saying this song by Alice Shields was designed to get lots of radio play and become a big hit?
[youtube]4vTRZPLyKX0&fmt=18[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top