It's a bit dated, given that they wrote it in the 80s, but it contains some absolute gems:
Stock, Aitkin and Waterman, however, are kings of writing chorus lyrics that go straight to the emotional heart of the 7" single buying girls in this country. Their most successful records will kick into the chorus with a line which encapsulates the entire emotional meaning of the song. This will obviously be used as the title. As soon as Rick Astley hit the first line of the chorus on his debut single it was all over - the Number One position was guaranteed:
"I'm never going to give you up"
It says it all. It's what every girl in the land whatever her age wants to hear her dream man tell her. Then to follow that line with:
"I'm never gonna let you down I'm never going to fool around or upset you"
GENIUS.
As soon as they had those lyrics written they must have known they could have taken out a block booking on the Number One slot. Then within the next twelve months to have written the chorus:
"I should be so lucky Luck, lucky, lucky I should be so lucky in love"
Great recommendation. The KLF wrote the book on this.
If you like that, you might want to check out "How to Get Rich" by Felix Dennis, another entertaining half-howto, half-confession by a british "hungry young hustler on the make".
It's in my bucket-list-o-life: [ ] Make a hit record following "The Manual". I don't want to be famous, I just want the meal with the KLF they promise if you succeed.
This! A million times. KFL did actually did outsmart the system and not start with the ridiculous premise of first "becoming a youtube superstar". Plus labels had been using the remix approach for ages. After all each good old single cd release had the same song in 3-5 versions on it.
This is quite a long read so I'm going to bookmark it for now. But as I'm quite a fan of KLF, I'm looking forward to having to time to read :)
If you like listening to music, it's well worth the read. You'll start noticing quite how many popular songs stick to the rules they outline in the Manual.
It's also a really interesting historical document of how the industry operated at the time, with a few nice tape-reels-and-fun-old-tech thrown in.
Oh I'm a huge music fan. In fact I used to compose and produce music back in the 90s and 00s (and obviously listened to it long before that) and spent much of the last decade DJing in house and techno clubs (though not as a headliner, sadly). So I've been an observer of formulas used within music for quite some time :)
In fact I used to deliberately play off contrasting formulas just to challenge peoples perceptions of what music they like or should expect from a specific genre. I'll be honest, sometimes with little success. But enough times I'd create something unique and engaging enough to make the failed attempts worthwhile.
I wish I still had the time for all this, but it's really an all or nothing passion; you really need to dedicate your life to it otherwise you're never going to be happy with your output (particularly if you're hypercritical of your own work, like I am). Sadly my wife doesn't share the same passion, so it's hard to justify spending weeks locked in my modest home studio. So these days I just produce the odd novelty record for NYE house parties, friends weddings and such like.
particularly if you're hypercritical of your own work, like I am
Heh, I think there are few people out there who think differently :)
For me, I'd love to have a couple of hours every day that I could dedicate to getting my piano playing back to the level I was 15 years ago. C'mon passive income!
Well that's all very good, well done etc, but now what?
This guy, through a combination of youthful good looks, utter lack of shame, and sheer hustle has managed to get himself onto the british top 10. But he can't sustain it and the song itself is utter crap; he never set out to make good music, after all.
So what's the point?
The author mentions Tim Ferriss and I see the parallels. Ferriss also "hacked" his way into the Chinese Kung Fu champion's position, by unconventional use of the rules, in a paper achievement lacking any real accomplishment or respect. To his credit, Tim followed up by writing several books of actual value, and never confused hacking a competition with actually being a kung-fu master.
Like Ferriss's win, this is a stunt, a conversation starter, a prelude. It's AirBNB's Cheeri-O's, or whatever they were called. A cool anecdote to talk about - and kudos to him, genuinely, and AirBNB, and Ferriss. But it's not a real achievement in and of itself, not one that I particularly care about, anyway. At the end of the day, you still have to make AirBNB.
Notoriety and because he can? Same reasons many hackers do what they do.
I'll concede that I wish he was doing it for the love of the music, but I don't think anyone who seriously loves music takes the charts seriously these days anyway (it's largely just recycled, generic and heavily watered down crap).
Yeah, I'm not trying to downplay what he did. More effort than he implies but still, mission accomplished.
It's just that he says his aim was:
to be a successful musician in the UK with a Top Five single in the charts
And he's talking like he achieved that, the easy way, with a "hack" no less. And it just doesn't seem to me like he's actually a successful musician yet.
With regards to the 'musician' label, I whole heartedly agree with you. Having both learned to play the guitar and learned to produce digital music, I've found term 'musician' is often over used by producers (not that I'm trying to undermine the skill required to be an adept producer, it's just a different skill).
You're talking about entrepreneurs not hackers. While there's obviously room for overlap, this particular guy doesn't fall within the intersection between the two subsections of our social Venn diagram.
yeah actually i've asked my self the same.. what's the point, my main goal is to create some good quality music that would be valueble.. taking about popstars.. i don't give a shit, i will earn more as a senior developer per life, then trying to get popular in minutes or "with quality" per lifetime... but this article is quite nice experiment. actually youtube is more then enough for me, although i don't have too much viewers.. i'm still glad to have some at all :)
What utter BS of a guide. As a musician for many years, I can tell you that he would not have a number 1 hit if he didn't have hundreds of thousands of YouTube subscribers. If this guy didn't have the YouTube subscribers, he would of sold to his family and friends and that's probably it.
The music industry is a popularity contest. Believe it or not, there are hundreds of thousands of artists who produce high quality songs but don't have a huge fan base preexisting on a social network.
Getting a big hit is the same as getting a big hit in the startup world. Unless you have a prexisting connection/PR marketing presence, the success is mostly driven by luck and brutal hard work.
What grinds my gears in the music world (and startup world) is when people who have success think it has something to do with their product/song being more unique or better than the next guys. 9 out of 10 times it is due to some competitive advantage the artist/founder had over others.
That was what seemed like the crux of the article to me: get 650,000 Youtube subscribers. Taking that as a premise makes anything after seem like cake.
Vague mumbo jumbo including the sentence "I had recorded songs before with other producers (...)" as a not-so-zero experience indicator. The guys has a well frequented Youtube channel for 5 years. And he does not even get into that pre-benefit.
Skip, you are not missing anything in this "let's drop the word 'hack'" fluff piece.
if it was that easy to get into the charts as an independent artist then everyone would be doing it.
This is why I like The Manual by the KLF so much (I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread).
They really spell out the effort involved:
So how do you go about achieving a U.K. Number One? Follow this simple step by step guide:
Firstly, you must be skint [having no money] and on the dole [state benefits]. Anybody with a proper job or tied up with full time education will not have the time to devote to see it through
Having no money sharpens the wits. Forces you never to make the wrong decision. There is no safety net to catch you when you fall.
And a word from one of the authors:
If you wanna have a number one, if that's... it's a pathetic thing to wanna have, but if you want to, you can have it. It won't make you rich, it won't make you happy, but you can have it.
The One Direction Youtube channel the article links to has ~95,000,000 views, that channel is the one that only contains interviews and tour diaries, their actual music channel has almost 1.5 BILLION video views (http://www.youtube.com/user/onedirectionvevo). He doesn't even come close to the exposure of One Direction, their channel is ~18 months old and his >5 years, and 1D's real channel is 15x the size in 1/3rd of the time.
Something not mentioned in the article which I think is important to note is that the song "dropped to number 112 the following week, setting a record for the biggest drop in UK Singles Chart history, falling 108 places". It seems like he used his online fan base to push the single that one week and it gained zero traction with the general public once it got there.
I was working as a radio presenter at the time this song was around, and I remember it getting on our playlist - I played it a few times. I remember it being trailed as a "YouTube sensation" on the little cheat sheet of artist notes that accompanies the new music playlist.
Next time the playlist was issued by our Head of Music, it had disappeared. Usually, we kept a current song on the playlist for 3-4 weeks at least. It was highly unusual for a track to disappear after a week! The only other songs I can remember with such a short shelf life were novelty / charity / Christmas type records which lasted a fortnight or so before dropping off as public attention drifted elsewhere.
That's good because the song itself sounds like an unholy mix of Katy Perry and William Topaz McGonagall; if that annoying shit had gotten any sort of traction I might be prone to snap and smash every piece of audio-playing electronics I owned...
I think one of the best points here is that you should exploit loopholes for your own advantage. Alex did this by allowing multiple song versions to be purchased so he could compound the sales that meant he didnt need as many people to buy his song. Tim Ferriss did it when he became a kickboxing champion by shoving his opponents outside the ring and essentially winning on a technicality.
Sure, these kind of things may be considered unethical and if a new guy came into my industry and rose to the top very quickly by exploiting a loophole after i've devoted years of my life to do it the right way, i'd be properly pissed off. But this option can act as a springboard into turning your ambition into real success.
I once heard a story, no idea if its true or not, of a guy that bought a chain of retail sports stores. He didnt have any real money, but managed to structure the deal to pay a small deposit and pay the remainder over time. What he did to raise the initial deposit was get a series of personal loans, house, friends and family, etc. He then bought the business by paying the deposit, then immediately sold off all existing stock as quickly as he could in sales and wholesale lots, giving the business a massive cash injection and revenue spike. That allowed him to pay off all his personal loans and pay the remainder of the money to the seller. He then got long term lines of credit from suppliers based on the long term good history the business already had, restocked and resumed normal operation, over time paying down the lines of credit and keeping the business on the good track it was already on.
My point being, is that you should always look for your competitive advantage.
The behaviour of the guy you talk about was incredibly irresponsible. Stretched that thin, the slightest hiccup could have brought the whole operation crashing down. Worse still, he wasn't gambling with his own money. His failure would have cost his friends and family, the suppliers who gave him credit, and, in his struggles to stay afloat, he likely would have ruined the finances and reputation of the business he took over. Lastly, in the event that he had failed, the original sellers of the business would end up with nothing but the initial deposit (and the pain of watching their hard built business run into the ground by an idiot).
It's also worth pointing out that the guy's plan of action was pretty stupid. If the suppliers had paid the slightest bit of attention, maybe even talked to each other a bit, they would have found out what he was doing, and refused his request. The long term good history of the business wouldn't count for anything if it became known that the owner was up to his eyeballs in high interest debt and had just sold off all his stock. I mean seriously, his plan hinged on the suppliers not noticing that all his stores were empty.
The story probably isn't true, but if it is, then it isn't something to aspire to. It's a story about a guy doing something very unethical (if not fraudulent). It's a story about a guy taking massive risks with other people's money in order to benefit only himself.
If your idea of competitive advantage is doing something that only helps you and harms others, then you shouldn't evangelise about it. For one thing, it can only hurt you in the long run if other people pick up your ideas and act this way.
I agree with you, and perhaps i used a poor example, i was just saying that there is sometimes an alternative route, i'm not saying that you should take it though, but i think being aware of it would be valuable.
I've heard a similar story before - at least the using loans to buy assets, and using those to get more loans bit. I can't remember who, but I think it was someone who is pretty famous (and wealthy) now.
I don't disagree with your reasoning, but I think your result is completely off the bat. The thing is sometimes you have to take big risks to get big rewards, and if you play it with enough of an edge you can win. Whether or not you think it is unethical or not right, in reality I think this is how a lot of businesses are actually run.
So strange that what was once a tactic of cynical industry players is now the modus operandi of young artists themselves. Where is there room for compensated self-expression in this brave new world of content creation I wonder?
Just what the world needed: More talentless hacks teaching the world how to more efficiently spread bad art.
It really is a shame that time invested into areas having nothing to do with the music is rewarded over the music itself. This seems to select out the good artists who are actually doing something interesting.
I wonder how many of the purchases were "revenge" - it seems to be that most years there is an aggressive social media campaign for anyone BUT the latest X-factor star. I know in 2011 there was definitely a big push for anything but the JLS/One-direction single to be #1
It's been happening for the last 4 or 5 years but I think it's only been really successful once with Rage Against The Machine. It was one of the first things I thought of when he mentioned Christmas number 1 but I think the power behind those campaigns has really diminished in recent years.
I'm an Alex Day fan and don't really understand the negativity in the comments here. He makes music I like and spread it in an unconventional way. That's about it.
Not a hack, but just a different way to go about it.
He definitely hacked the system to get so high in the charts by releasing multiple versions of the same song. As for his music, everyone has their own taste but as soon as I heard the song embedded in the article I understood why, even reaching so high in the charts, I'd never heard of him. I don't pay much attention to the charts but I've heard most of the songs in it either on radio or at clubs/bars. That's the first time I've ever heard of him or the song. It's cool that he was able to hack the system in this way (there are other obvious loop holes in the chart system that can be hacked too) but if his goal was to become a successful musician he hasn't achieved it. Definitely an interesting article though.
Through selling multiple versions of the same song. I presume that he offered the collection of versions for a low price leading to some people who were just going to buy the single to buy the collection instead (which would contribute multiple sales to his total).
http://freshonthenet.co.uk/the-manual-by-the-klf/
It's a bit dated, given that they wrote it in the 80s, but it contains some absolute gems:
Stock, Aitkin and Waterman, however, are kings of writing chorus lyrics that go straight to the emotional heart of the 7" single buying girls in this country. Their most successful records will kick into the chorus with a line which encapsulates the entire emotional meaning of the song. This will obviously be used as the title. As soon as Rick Astley hit the first line of the chorus on his debut single it was all over - the Number One position was guaranteed:
"I'm never going to give you up"
It says it all. It's what every girl in the land whatever her age wants to hear her dream man tell her. Then to follow that line with:
"I'm never gonna let you down I'm never going to fool around or upset you"
GENIUS.
As soon as they had those lyrics written they must have known they could have taken out a block booking on the Number One slot. Then within the next twelve months to have written the chorus:
"I should be so lucky Luck, lucky, lucky I should be so lucky in love"