A question for all haters of The Script

Technocentral

ntlbell wrote: »

Such condescending,snobbish childish rubbish.

You don't need a phd in classical music or own the complete backlog of artisit unknown to be a music fan.

People like what they like and it doesn't make them any less of a fan than anyone else.

I would imagine it must be pretty painful in having such a linear taste in music.

I've said it many times before we can't help what our ears like, if it makes your foot tap it's good. The complexity or lyrical creativity etc doesn't really matter.

Wouldn't it be a blessing to enjoy every song you ever heard?

I'm interested in original, engaging music, I don't give a f*ck about manufactured shiite hawks aimed at pre teen girls, if you enjoy everything you ever heard nothing is outstanding or special I would hate to think like that about music (or anything else).

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

karaokeman wrote: »

I would like them to write more singalong, eccentric tunes, maybe along the lines of Green Day's "Holiday" or Alice Cooper's "School's Out", maybe something similar to AC/DC's "Highway To Hell".

Why dress up a wolf as a sheep.
The script are a pop rock/indie band, why would they record an ACDC like song? as you have said, they are doing a great job writing radio friendly songs for the casual music listener, why change?

EDIT: Just reading through the thread, the amount of band bashing going on is hilarious. Music is subjective to the listener, what some people love, other people hate. if people enjoy listening to "manufactured shiite hawks aimed at pre teen girls", who cares? isnt that what makes people different and individual? If a band is able to write songs that are able to fill the aviva/o2/slane/rds..., regardless of genre, then fair play to them.

karaokeman

Technocentral wrote: »

manufactured shiite hawks aimed at pre teen girls

The Script are by no means manufactured.

It has been said many times in this thread, they are a band of musicians who write their own songs and play instruments.

ntlbell

Technocentral wrote: »

I'm interested in original, engaging music, I don't give a f*ck about manufactured shiite hawks aimed at pre teen girls, if you enjoy everything you ever heard nothing is outstanding or special I would hate to think like that about music (or anything else).

Your missing the point completely.

But that's ok, I wasn't expecting anything less.

Your ear has no idea about manufactured girly or anything else.

It just likes what it hears, you say it like you have some sort of control over it and "choose" to like x y and z.

I personally don't know too much about The script or their back catalog but of the songs I do know I know enough that's very difficult to do what they do.

Same goes for the production teams and song writers behind a lot of bands, these guys are amazingly talented if anyone could write hit after hit we would all be doing it and making millions but it's a very difficult skill.

You not liking it or closing your mind off to it because it's "manufactured" is really what teenagers do.

Maybe when you get to an age where your friends won't ridicule you for your musical choices you'll appreciate a wider range and not exclude a band because they mentioned the word love.

stimpson

Nolanger wrote: »

They've this one as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG3SUHO2_Tc

That was deeply unpleasant. It should have come with a warning of some kind.

As the thread has already been godwined, I'd just like to point out that all music would sound like this if the Nazi's had won the war. These people don't deserve to live, but at the very least they should have their vocal cords removed.

Sinfonia

ntlbell wrote: »

Your missing the point completely.

But that's ok, I wasn't expecting anything less.

Your ear has no idea about manufactured girly or anything else.

It just likes what it hears, you say it like you have some sort of control over it and "choose" to like x y and z.

I personally don't know too much about The script or their back catalog but of the songs I do know I know enough that's very difficult to do what they do.

Same goes for the production teams and song writers behind a lot of bands, these guys are amazingly talented if anyone could write hit after hit we would all be doing it and making millions but it's a very difficult skill.

You not liking it or closing your mind off to it because it's "manufactured" is really what teenagers do.

Maybe when you get to an age where your friends won't ridicule you for your musical choices you'll appreciate a wider range and not exclude a band because they mentioned the word love.

1) Composers of 'hit' songs write to a formula that has already been proven popular. Mass popularity is achieved through mediocrity; it must be, because if people have different tastes, then niche genres will appeal to only a few, while a watered-down mix of various genres will appeal to much more. What matters is how this music is packaged and marketed, which is why Louis Walsh and Simon Cowell are chosen to judge aspiring musicians.

2) The ear is a vessel for transmitting sonic messages to the brain. Whether they be conscious or subconscious, you are most certainly making choices.

rcaz

Sinfonia wrote: »

a watered-down mix of various genres will appeal to much more

THAT'S IT!

I'm dropping out of college.

Kold

How many people here like all the music they liked 10 yrs ago? Subjective is one thing but there is such thing as a cultured ear. By all means, hang McDonalds colouring in sheets on your wall at home but don't try to claim that just because you like it, that it has just as much value as a Titian.

ntlbell

Sinfonia wrote: »

1) Composers of 'hit' songs write to a formula that has already been proven popular. Mass popularity is achieved through mediocrity; it must be, because if people have different tastes, then niche genres will appeal to only a few, while a watered-down mix of various genres will appeal to much more. What matters is how this music is packaged and marketed, which is why Louis Walsh and Simon Cowell are chosen to judge aspiring musicians.

2) The ear is a vessel for transmitting sonic messages to the brain. Whether they be conscious or subconscious, you are most certainly making choices.

So why are these hit song writers so highly paid? why are they so hard to come across?

Why is everyone on the planet not following the formula and writing hit after hit and sitting in the sun?

of course it has to be marketed correctly but if you can write hit after hit which you say is so easy i'm sure simon would snap you up without a second thought. but the fact is it's not that easy.

you can't say ok, i want to like heavy metal and then sit down and like it.

You either will like it or not you won't "choose" to like it or dislike it.

but most people "choose" not to like certain songs because of the stigma attached to said band and or artist.

stimpson

ntlbell wrote: »

of course it has to be marketed correctly but if you can write hit after hit which you say is so easy i'm sure simon would snap you up without a second thought. but the fact is it's not that easy.

RTFM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual

The Austrian Eurotrash band Edelweiss took the book as a primary influence: they read the book, borrowed ABBA's "S.O.S.", and sold five million copies worldwide with "Bring Me Edelweiss".[4][5] It also proved to be an influence on 2000s British girl group The Pipettes who formed after reading the book in order to explore "the idea of being a pop machine."[6]

ntlbell

stimpson wrote: »

RTFM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual

I'll ask the question again.

Why is everyone not doing it and making millions?

stimpson

ntlbell wrote: »

I'll ask the question again.

Why is everyone not doing it and making millions?

I would assume becoming a media whoring celebrity is not everyone's idea of a good time, but judging by the popularity of the likes of X factor, and indeed, the Script, there are many that are willing to try.

ntlbell

stimpson wrote: »

I would assume becoming a media whoring celebrity is not everyone's idea of a good time, but judging by the popularity of the likes of X factor, and indeed, the Script, there are many that are willing to try.

I'm not talking about a media whore, if you can write a number one hit after number one hit that will generate millions. why not do it? If it's so easy?

stimpson

ntlbell wrote: »

I'm not talking about a media whore, if you can write a number one hit after number one hit that will generate millions. why not do it? If it's so easy?

You'll have to ask everyone - I can only speculate. People have done so after reading the Manual. Q.E.D.

karaokeman

stimpson wrote: »

You'll have to ask everyone - I can only speculate. People have done so after reading the Manual. Q.E.D.

Can you actually back up that argument by saying with quoted evidence that The Script learned to write hit after hit by reading that book?

I agree with ntlbell while there are people out there who dislike The Script for various reasons there will always be those basing their arguments on the sort of stereotypes surrounding so-called "radio-friendly" bands and songs that are mostly about love.

The Script as have been said many times in this thread write their own songs. They are good songwriters and their music is not marketed in any way by them to appeal to a certain audience. Fact is not everyone can do it because not everyone is a naturally gifted songwriter, the three members of The Script are.

Mindkiller

With some of the stuff being said ITT you'd swear that music taste was inscribed in our genes. Believe it or not, there's a learning curve with appreciating certain music. It doesn't always click right away, but gaining a new appreciation for music you didn't previously understand is very rewarding.

Of course, if people are afraid of or just not interested in trying new things and want to listen to what's safe and familiar, then that's perfectly ok.

stimpson

karaokeman wrote: »

Can you actually back up that argument by saying with quoted evidence that The Script learned to write hit after hit by reading that book?

Where did I say that? I said some people have done it using the rules in the book. The Script obviously have a talent, if you can call it that, for writing commercial dirge that is hoovered up by fools who don't know any better.

I agree with ntlbell while there are people out there who dislike The Script for various reasons there will always be those basing their arguments on the sort of stereotypes surrounding so-called "radio-friendly" bands and songs that are mostly about love.

I base my argument on their musical output.

The Script as have been said many times in this thread write their own songs. They are good songwriters and their music is not marketed in any way by them to appeal to a certain audience. Fact is not everyone can do it because not everyone is a naturally gifted songwriter, the three members of The Script are.

The quality of their song writing is debatable. If you think they aren't marketed by their record company then you haven't got a clue. Were they on an indie label while building a grass roots following by gigging around town before they had a big break? No. They were in a 2 bit boy band who were notable in that they wrote their own shyte songs instead of having them written by a producer. They excel at mediocrity. Nothing more.

rcaz

stimpson wrote: »

RTFM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manual

RTFW... About TM... RTFWM...

Read the fuck I N C E P T I O N

Sinfonia

ntlbell wrote: »

So why are these hit song writers so highly paid? why are they so hard to come across?
Why is everyone on the planet not following the formula and writing hit after hit and sitting in the sun?

Who says they're very highly paid?
Most wouldn't be, and would generally be paid a once-off fee and hand their song over to the record company. The songwriters who make the most money are those who are smart and stern enough to retain ownership and copyright of their songs and are still in demand (while many who want to retain those things would be shown the door). Either way, I don't know where you're getting the idea that all of these songwriters are billionaires in mansions.

And of course not everybody on the planet could do it either, because there are people who have no clue about how music works. What I can tell you is that these kinds of songs are not difficult to write. The principles of harmony, melody and rhythm that underlie 99% of 'commercial pop music' were firmly established in the seventeenth-century, and have been studied, analysed and understood since not much later than that. I mean christ, if you market it correctly, some bad poetry and a I-V-vi-IV chord progression is bound to be popular, which is why so many of the world's most popular songs use it. Personally, if I were to write a song or piece of music, I have too much respect for music as an art form to cheapen it with money-driven bullshit.

ntlbell

stimpson wrote: »

You'll have to ask everyone - I can only speculate. People have done so after reading the Manual. Q.E.D.

Ok, why don't YOU do it?

ntlbell

Sinfonia wrote: »

Who says they're very highly paid?
Most wouldn't be, and would generally be paid a once-off fee and hand their song over to the record company. The songwriters who make the most money are those who are smart and stern enough to retain ownership and copyright of their songs and are still in demand (while many who want to retain those things would be shown the door). Either way, I don't know where you're getting the idea that all of these songwriters are billionaires in mansions.

I didn't say they were billionaires, but if it's so easy to do, you could write a number in what? a few hours? that's a lot of hits in a week. so I'd assume it's well above the average industrial wage for something that's very very easy to do apparently.

Sinfonia wrote: »

And of course not everybody on the planet could do it either, because there are people who have no clue about how music works. What I can tell you is that these kinds of songs are not difficult to write. The principles of harmony, melody and rhythm that underlie 99% of 'commercial pop music' were firmly established in the seventeenth-century, and have been studied, analysed and understood since not much later than that. I mean christ, if you market it correctly, some bad poetry and a I-V-vi-IV chord progression is bound to be popular, which is why so many of the world's most popular songs use it. Personally, if I were to write a song or piece of music, I have too much respect for music as an art form to cheapen it with money-driven bullshit.

How many number one hits have you written so far?

Do you think you could?

lets hear one.

stimpson

ntlbell wrote: »

Ok, why don't YOU do it?

Dunno. Maybe it's self respect.

ntlbell

stimpson wrote: »

Dunno. Maybe it's self respect.

So you think if you write a song with popular mass appeal you would lose your self respect?

I think it's clear you have nothing to really add here.

rcaz

ntlbell wrote: »

So you think if you write a song with popular mass appeal you would lose your self respect?

I think it's clear you have nothing to really add here.

No it isn't. To write a really popular song, most of the time, involves watering down aspects of the music. You have to have a melody everyone can sing along to, lyrics everyone can relate to and understand, timbres everyone is used to hearing.

How many songs have you heard with the exact same chord progression as Jason Mraz's I'm Yours? If you wrote another song with that progression, you'd already be well on the way to having lots of people think your song sounds good.

The whole 'If it's so easy why don't you do it?' argument is the weakest, easiest point you can try to stick to. It's not our job to write hit songs, but we know how to go about it. Just so happens we don't want to waste our time on making empty music

stimpson

ntlbell wrote: »

So you think if you write a song with popular mass appeal you would lose your self respect?

I think it's clear you have nothing to really add here.

Lol. Is that how you win an argument?

To give you a fuller answer, I have no desire to suck the corporate cock of the music industry - metaphorically or literally. I already have a successful career and get paid to do what I love. Not everyone is motivated by fame and money and the chance to appear on X Factor.

Anyway, these guys were the masters of writing forgettable throwaway 3 minute pop songs. They should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_written_or_produced_by_Stock_Aitken_Waterman

ntlbell

El Pr0n wrote: »

No it isn't. To write a really popular song, most of the time, involves watering down aspects of the music. You have to have a melody everyone can sing along to, lyrics everyone can relate to and understand, timbres everyone is used to hearing.

How many songs have you heard with the exact same chord progression as Jason Mraz's I'm Yours? If you wrote another song with that progression, you'd already be well on the way to having lots of people think your song sounds good.

The whole 'If it's so easy why don't you do it?' argument is the weakest, easiest point you can try to stick to. It's not our job to write hit songs, but we know how to go about it. Just so happens we don't want to waste our time on making empty music

hogwash

the "I'm so dedicated to the cause of making _real_ music man" is horse ****.

Writing good pop music is difficult and it's a skill in itself.

Listening to some bitter "real" musician harp on about the sell out's etc while they eat beans on toast for the rest of their life is just boring.

all these people would be writing these easy rubbish pop songs selling them on to simon et al

but it's not easy and me asking for someone who says it is and stating it's an easy argument is nonsense. it's like someone saying it's easy to be a professional footballer but can't kick snow off a rope.

if you make music, then show everyone here how easy it is.

it should only take an hour or two and present us something as catchy as one of the script's hits?

I won't be expecting anything soon.

Sinfonia

When I write music I enjoy it because it's a learned craft and I like to be challenged.
I've written music mostly for orchestra, string orchestra, percussion ensembles and solo instruments, and it's ****ing hard work because all the while I'm faced with challenges of learning and developing skills regarding instrumentation and orchestration, advanced techniques of harmony, skilful modulation, the list goes on.
I'm in no way an excellent composer, but I'm trying, and I enjoy it; at the very least, I'm improving all the time, but I feel I have a long way to go (and I most likely won't ever reach the point I endeavour to achieve).

What I can say, without any boastfulness, without any attempt to belittle the achievements of any other person, without passion or prejudice, is this:
The composition of a popular song is very, very simple, and most of what it entails (in order to make it popular) has nothing to do with writing music.
Most popular songs make use of a basic harmonic progression of three or four chords in root position, repeated for three or four minutes. (As I've already said, the I-V-vi-IV progression is used in countless pop songs - as El Pr0n pointed out, 'I'm Yours' by Jason Mraz is but one example*) A simple tonal melody that most people would find easy enough to remember and/or sing along to is usually sung over those chords.
Instrumentation, tempo and rhythmic feel tend to go through trends, often depending on the time of year (for example, a big 'summer song' will generally have a moderate or walking-pace tempo, slightly swing-feel rhythm and probably some twee instrument like a ukelele thrown in).
That's all that really happens, music-wise.
I'm no poet, but from what I can see, lyrics are often not very important, and sometimes lyrics don't even really need to be fully audible (take Kings of Leon for example).
Everything after that, and the financial success of the song, is just business; that's where Cowell, Walsh et al come in with the knowledge of packaging and marketing. Doesn't hurt to have a pretty singer involved either.

My point is that if one has never learned anything about music (theory etc.) then yes, they may find it difficult to write any kind of song. But for anyone who has put time into learning an instrument or learning about music theory or learning about composition, the composition of a popular song (as far as the music goes) is piss-easy, and personally I'd rather spend my time slaving over an hour-long piece for orchestra trying to get all the details right than to hammer out twenty pop songs in the hopes of selling them. The feeling of hearing something performed that you've spent an age constructing is absolutely exhilarating, and at my current station in life I don't really care all that much about making money; maybe that'll change if I unexpectedly have a bunch of kids or something, but at the moment, I get by fine, and I enjoy what I do.


*Other examples of the I-V-vi-IV progression off the top of my head are U2 'With or Without You', Train 'Hey Soul Sister', Green Day 'When I Come Around', Blink 182 'Dammit' and 'What's My Age Again?', Bob Marley 'No Woman, No Cry', and many many many many many many many more

ntlbell

Just taking a song like with or without you not the skill of playing the instruments or the writing of the chords but this song as a whole package required an amazing amount of talent, I don't care if it was bono, brian eno or someone they found in a pub who wrote it. The whole package took an abundance of talent that the average person does not have to put together.

My partner is a classically trained pianist with a masters in music. I've played the drums for many years, to say this automatically puts you into a position to write a song that would reach mass appeal based on this to me is complete delusion and utter contempt on your behalf of the skill required to write the catchy pop song.

I would imagine I could sit down and write songs for the rest of my life and never come to anything close as with or without or any of the platora of great pop songs.

I think "real" musicians would like to think it requires little or no skill so they can throw their eyes up to heaven as they squeeze their tea bag for the 3rd cup.

ntlbell

Mindkiller wrote: »

With some of the stuff being said ITT you'd swear that music taste was inscribed in our genes. Believe it or not, there's a learning curve with appreciating certain music. It doesn't always click right away, but gaining a new appreciation for music you didn't previously understand is very rewarding.

Of course, if people are afraid of or just not interested in trying new things and want to listen to what's safe and familiar, then that's perfectly ok.

I can appreciate the talent and skill involved in music that doesn't appeal to my "taste" But I can't "learn" to like a certain band/song/genre.

It's like food if you don't try out different types/dishes/etc you obviously won't know if you like the taste or not but you can't force your taste buds to like it. You don't "choose" what tastes good to you, you "choose" what to eat.

stimpson

ntlbell wrote: »

It's like food if you don't try out different types/dishes/etc you obviously won't know if you like the taste or not but you can't force your taste buds to like it. You don't "choose" what tastes good to you, you "choose" what to eat.

That's a great analogy. Some people like to eat at McDonalds. Would you argue that it must be good food because so many people eat there?