Great job Green Bay! Fantastic Pack shutout on defense!!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
What makes a pop song a pop song? An essay.
What makes a pop song popular?
When turning on the radio or tv to a music station, it will not take very long until I hear a catchy song that I may enjoy immediately. In many cases this song will inevitably end up on my 'songs I am sick of list', simply because I tend to hear it quite frequently. Many times I wonder, what makes this song so popular? Why is it so catchy that I find myself humming along to the melody when I am painstakingly cleaning the bathroom or labouring in my front yard?
When considering this topic and hearing successful songwriters weigh in on the subject, I find two common denominators: either it is a gift from the heavens, or one can manufacture a song that connects with people by using a few key tricks. As gifts are never expected and always appreciated, I am much more inclined to put more focus on what these tricks of the trade are. While exploring the finer methods of song craft, I was validated in my understanding that the 'hook' was one of the most important elements in the creation of a catchy song.
The hook is basically a musical idea that will grab the listener's ear. This hook can consist of things such as unique rhythmical phrasing or a really cool instrumental riff.
When I spent an afternoon at an A&R demo listening meeting at the world renowned South By Southwest music festival, it was very apparent to me that the hook was a key ingredient in a song. There were A&R representatives from Warner Music, Universal, and EMI to name a few, and these experts indicated that if they were not hooked within the first minute of a song that they were listening to, they would simply stop listening.
Another element of a catchy song is to have strong and easily understandable lyrics. Bob Dylan once said that good songs need to say something. Whether it is a socially relevant subject, a heartwarming story, something funny, or a play on words, the lyrics have a large role to play in communicating to the listener's ears, emotions, and heart. Truly great lyrics will allow the listener to interpret specific meaning that they can identify with, and this could have a completely different meaning from what the lyricist may have intended.
Many gatekeepers in the music industry will not give your song the light of day unless it is a short song. In the glory days of radio, one would have been hard pressed to find a song on air that was longer than two minutes. One of the first groups to have a successfully high charting long song was the Beatles with their song Hey Jude. Clocking in at over seven minutes, it may be argued that this song received the nod to be played on air simply because it was the Beatles who released it. However it did quite successfully use the hook and understandable lyric characteristics referenced earlier to assist in its nomination for radio airplay. When it comes to consistency, local producer and Manitoba Music grant adjudicator John Paul Peters once told me that his general rule of thumb is to keep a song under four minutes. His reasoning had to do with the fact that he did not want a song eliminated from a program director's playlist considerations because the song was too long. If your song can not get played on air, how could it ever become a hit?
On the subject of Hey Jude, and the Beatles, considered by many to be the greatest group of songwriters in modern history, the sing-along-ability of a song is generally a winner. The Beatles have made it as simple as singing Na-Na-Na-Na-NA-Na-Na. I spend a fair amount of time attending music concerts of all types, and when the artists manage to engage the audience in a sing along of their songs, this seems to resonate with an overall general feeling of community. It appears to me that people who sing along to the song are feeling like they are a part of something larger than themselves, and when I see and hear them sing with all their heart, I can only surmise that this must be true.
Although there are certainly other forces at work behind what makes specific songs popular such as danceable tempo speeds, switching to the relative minor at transition points or bridges within the songs etc, a great and popular song will always be a song that can make the listener feel some sort of emotion. Whether it’s good or bad. As Kenny Gamble, one of the founders of the genre of Philly Soul once said, when you hear a great song, you think it's about you.
When turning on the radio or tv to a music station, it will not take very long until I hear a catchy song that I may enjoy immediately. In many cases this song will inevitably end up on my 'songs I am sick of list', simply because I tend to hear it quite frequently. Many times I wonder, what makes this song so popular? Why is it so catchy that I find myself humming along to the melody when I am painstakingly cleaning the bathroom or labouring in my front yard?
When considering this topic and hearing successful songwriters weigh in on the subject, I find two common denominators: either it is a gift from the heavens, or one can manufacture a song that connects with people by using a few key tricks. As gifts are never expected and always appreciated, I am much more inclined to put more focus on what these tricks of the trade are. While exploring the finer methods of song craft, I was validated in my understanding that the 'hook' was one of the most important elements in the creation of a catchy song.
The hook is basically a musical idea that will grab the listener's ear. This hook can consist of things such as unique rhythmical phrasing or a really cool instrumental riff.
When I spent an afternoon at an A&R demo listening meeting at the world renowned South By Southwest music festival, it was very apparent to me that the hook was a key ingredient in a song. There were A&R representatives from Warner Music, Universal, and EMI to name a few, and these experts indicated that if they were not hooked within the first minute of a song that they were listening to, they would simply stop listening.
Another element of a catchy song is to have strong and easily understandable lyrics. Bob Dylan once said that good songs need to say something. Whether it is a socially relevant subject, a heartwarming story, something funny, or a play on words, the lyrics have a large role to play in communicating to the listener's ears, emotions, and heart. Truly great lyrics will allow the listener to interpret specific meaning that they can identify with, and this could have a completely different meaning from what the lyricist may have intended.
Many gatekeepers in the music industry will not give your song the light of day unless it is a short song. In the glory days of radio, one would have been hard pressed to find a song on air that was longer than two minutes. One of the first groups to have a successfully high charting long song was the Beatles with their song Hey Jude. Clocking in at over seven minutes, it may be argued that this song received the nod to be played on air simply because it was the Beatles who released it. However it did quite successfully use the hook and understandable lyric characteristics referenced earlier to assist in its nomination for radio airplay. When it comes to consistency, local producer and Manitoba Music grant adjudicator John Paul Peters once told me that his general rule of thumb is to keep a song under four minutes. His reasoning had to do with the fact that he did not want a song eliminated from a program director's playlist considerations because the song was too long. If your song can not get played on air, how could it ever become a hit?
On the subject of Hey Jude, and the Beatles, considered by many to be the greatest group of songwriters in modern history, the sing-along-ability of a song is generally a winner. The Beatles have made it as simple as singing Na-Na-Na-Na-NA-Na-Na. I spend a fair amount of time attending music concerts of all types, and when the artists manage to engage the audience in a sing along of their songs, this seems to resonate with an overall general feeling of community. It appears to me that people who sing along to the song are feeling like they are a part of something larger than themselves, and when I see and hear them sing with all their heart, I can only surmise that this must be true.
Although there are certainly other forces at work behind what makes specific songs popular such as danceable tempo speeds, switching to the relative minor at transition points or bridges within the songs etc, a great and popular song will always be a song that can make the listener feel some sort of emotion. Whether it’s good or bad. As Kenny Gamble, one of the founders of the genre of Philly Soul once said, when you hear a great song, you think it's about you.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Kings of Leon
The new KOL album just came out. I've been listening to it while photo-shopping a picture of Rianna in Electronic Publishing class. It's pretty solid. Great strong arena ready anthems are the order of the day. I'll explore the popularity of KOL when I have a bit more time, next time. See you soon!
j
j
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Social Network Movie discussion post
I managed to watch the movie the Social Network on Thanksgiving Day and I must say I was entertained. Having heard a little bit about Mark Zuckerberg's story ahead of time, I was intrigued to find out more about him. I had heard rumours that he was a jerk, that he ripped people off, etc etc, but I found that the movie didn't necessarily paint him in that light.
I felt that he did what anyone would likely do if they had the talents and smarts that he did, and all is fair in love and war. He had some great ideas and a passion for getting people to connect in cyberspace, and although other people had some good ideas that he borrowed, Zuckerberg greatly improved on these ideas in a way that might have taken his competition years to catch up anyway.
On the prpost.wordpress.com blog titled "Zuckerberg, Hearst and Hollywood: PR Lessons Learned From the Past," Zuckerberg is quoted as saying that the movie is "fun" and that his life over the last 6 years has not really been that exciting, just writing code and such, and this doesn't surprise me. To achieve the level of success that his company has achieved, it would certainly take a lot of dedication and sweat equity to get it off the ground.
If anyone was painted in a bad light, it would have been the Sean Parker character, but even he was an important force in the creation of the social networking conglomerate that is Facebook.
As far as any impact on Facebook's popularity goes, I looked for some statistical figures on the matter but came up empty handed. They have so many members already, I can't see this movie improving these statistics in a dramatic way. If I had to guess, I would say that there are people out there who have joined Facebook because of the movie, and people who have left Facebook because they saw something they didn't like in the movie.
Referencing Zuckerberg's comments about the fact that they didn't properly portray him in the movie,(see the prpostwordpress site referenced earlier) I thought his critique was appropiate. I can't imagine what my life story would look like on the silver screen, but I'm pretty sure the boring parts would have been dramatisized a little more than what has actually happened. Writers do what they do to make movies entertaining to watch, and so some things just get shaped and moulded to fit into the context of an interesting story. As far as his comments having any impact on the audiences' perceptions of the site or its founders, I guess you'll win some and you'll lose some. Having this coupled hand in hand with a large $100 million donation announced on Oprah is one thing, but the fact that Zuckerberg mentioned that it was only a coincidence is a little hard to swallow.
It makes sense to have an announcement like a large charitable donation to be made on a show like Oprah, that's good PR. But to say that it wasn't planned to coincide with the movie's release just takes all that goodwill and throws it out the window.
But all in all, I think Zuckerberg deserves the success he's achieved, and in my opinion he should make sure he has someone on his team who can help him with his PR.
I felt that he did what anyone would likely do if they had the talents and smarts that he did, and all is fair in love and war. He had some great ideas and a passion for getting people to connect in cyberspace, and although other people had some good ideas that he borrowed, Zuckerberg greatly improved on these ideas in a way that might have taken his competition years to catch up anyway.
On the prpost.wordpress.com blog titled "Zuckerberg, Hearst and Hollywood: PR Lessons Learned From the Past," Zuckerberg is quoted as saying that the movie is "fun" and that his life over the last 6 years has not really been that exciting, just writing code and such, and this doesn't surprise me. To achieve the level of success that his company has achieved, it would certainly take a lot of dedication and sweat equity to get it off the ground.
If anyone was painted in a bad light, it would have been the Sean Parker character, but even he was an important force in the creation of the social networking conglomerate that is Facebook.
As far as any impact on Facebook's popularity goes, I looked for some statistical figures on the matter but came up empty handed. They have so many members already, I can't see this movie improving these statistics in a dramatic way. If I had to guess, I would say that there are people out there who have joined Facebook because of the movie, and people who have left Facebook because they saw something they didn't like in the movie.
Referencing Zuckerberg's comments about the fact that they didn't properly portray him in the movie,(see the prpostwordpress site referenced earlier) I thought his critique was appropiate. I can't imagine what my life story would look like on the silver screen, but I'm pretty sure the boring parts would have been dramatisized a little more than what has actually happened. Writers do what they do to make movies entertaining to watch, and so some things just get shaped and moulded to fit into the context of an interesting story. As far as his comments having any impact on the audiences' perceptions of the site or its founders, I guess you'll win some and you'll lose some. Having this coupled hand in hand with a large $100 million donation announced on Oprah is one thing, but the fact that Zuckerberg mentioned that it was only a coincidence is a little hard to swallow.
It makes sense to have an announcement like a large charitable donation to be made on a show like Oprah, that's good PR. But to say that it wasn't planned to coincide with the movie's release just takes all that goodwill and throws it out the window.
But all in all, I think Zuckerberg deserves the success he's achieved, and in my opinion he should make sure he has someone on his team who can help him with his PR.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Ad "Buyer Beware"
As I am a student, I am required from time to time to blog about non-musical themed assignments. This particular blog is about a buyer beware group project for Ad class.
My group consisted of four members, Dave Hollier, Tristan Field-Jones, John Gaudes, and myself. Together we looked at the role financial planning has in helping people grow their wealth, and we targeted Scotiabank and their "You're richer than you think" campaign. We wanted to find out if this was something that they could actually prove to us.
We broke the project down into several parts, my group members and I looked into the various regulatory bodies that would keep an institution like Scotiabank in check. The Manitoba Securities Commission (MSC) would give Scotiabank advisors a license to sell and advise on mutual funds. The Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) would ensure that the bank follows their guidelines in place with respect to making sure the advisors provide the right investment fit for their clients. The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) would handle client complaints etc. All these regulators ensure that financial institution are doing their fiduciary responsibility to give good service and advice to their clients. We put together a powerpoint presentation which captured all of these details and additional ones discussed below.
As a part of our primary research, Gaudes and I visited a Scotiabank branch and spoke with an advisor. In my meeting we discussed mortgages and their rates, loan rates, term deposit rates, banking fees etc, and all of these items would probably save me money if packaged together and in turn possibly make me a little more "richer," so to speak. However, we didn't really talk much about my overall goals, and what was important to me. This was something I had expected to discuss.
The Scotiabank advisor mentioned to me that she was not licensed to sell mutual funds, but she did say she could talk a little about them. She then proceeded to use the term "recommend" to me several times when discussing stock based mutual funds or "equities", which I believe was something she is not allowed to do. Had I not known anything about the investing in the first place, I might have been convinced to invest into something that may not have been appropriate for me.
Having worked in the financial services field for over 10 years, I certainly am well versed in what advisors like the one I met can and can't do. She clearly stepped over the line, and this concerned me. How many "advisors" are there out there that are not acting in their clients' best interest? How much non-informed advice is there out there?
In additional research on their websites, we found no shortage of cases where clients had complained to the MFDA or MSC or OBSI. Complaints ranged from people being victims of churning (buying and selling investments unnecessarily to produce commissions for the advisor), leveraged schemes(borrowing money to invest) as well as inappropriate advice where the investments were to risky for the clients risk tolerance and objectives as indicated on their KYC (Know Your Client questionnaire)form.
Part of the problem is the fact that the financial services industry is set up in such a way where a lot of advisors' income is bonus and commission based. I know this because I used to be paid in nothing but commission and bonuses. When a lot of money is on the line, temptation to go for the easy money is there. And as the baby boomer generation is starting to inherit massive sums of wealth from their parents, there will be plenty more money that will be thrown at this growing industry.
But when everything goes right, and you are a client that the banks would consider a high value client, you may really feel that you are well taken care of. Plus building a good relationship with your advisor can make all the difference in the world. Sadly, in many cases it takes a large amount of money to get an appointment with a really good financial planner. The more money you have, the more attention you will likely get from your advisor.
In conclusion, I suppose that many people could be richer than they think if they did take some of the advice that is out there. When you become richer, so do they, as their fees will always be a percentage of how much money you have. However, I can't say if Scotiabank's version of financial advice is better than anyone else's, as everyone's situation may be different. I think it's best that everyone finds out for themselves, and a little research can go a long way in being confident that you are doing what's best for you.
My group consisted of four members, Dave Hollier, Tristan Field-Jones, John Gaudes, and myself. Together we looked at the role financial planning has in helping people grow their wealth, and we targeted Scotiabank and their "You're richer than you think" campaign. We wanted to find out if this was something that they could actually prove to us.
We broke the project down into several parts, my group members and I looked into the various regulatory bodies that would keep an institution like Scotiabank in check. The Manitoba Securities Commission (MSC) would give Scotiabank advisors a license to sell and advise on mutual funds. The Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) would ensure that the bank follows their guidelines in place with respect to making sure the advisors provide the right investment fit for their clients. The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) would handle client complaints etc. All these regulators ensure that financial institution are doing their fiduciary responsibility to give good service and advice to their clients. We put together a powerpoint presentation which captured all of these details and additional ones discussed below.
As a part of our primary research, Gaudes and I visited a Scotiabank branch and spoke with an advisor. In my meeting we discussed mortgages and their rates, loan rates, term deposit rates, banking fees etc, and all of these items would probably save me money if packaged together and in turn possibly make me a little more "richer," so to speak. However, we didn't really talk much about my overall goals, and what was important to me. This was something I had expected to discuss.
The Scotiabank advisor mentioned to me that she was not licensed to sell mutual funds, but she did say she could talk a little about them. She then proceeded to use the term "recommend" to me several times when discussing stock based mutual funds or "equities", which I believe was something she is not allowed to do. Had I not known anything about the investing in the first place, I might have been convinced to invest into something that may not have been appropriate for me.
Having worked in the financial services field for over 10 years, I certainly am well versed in what advisors like the one I met can and can't do. She clearly stepped over the line, and this concerned me. How many "advisors" are there out there that are not acting in their clients' best interest? How much non-informed advice is there out there?
In additional research on their websites, we found no shortage of cases where clients had complained to the MFDA or MSC or OBSI. Complaints ranged from people being victims of churning (buying and selling investments unnecessarily to produce commissions for the advisor), leveraged schemes(borrowing money to invest) as well as inappropriate advice where the investments were to risky for the clients risk tolerance and objectives as indicated on their KYC (Know Your Client questionnaire)form.
Part of the problem is the fact that the financial services industry is set up in such a way where a lot of advisors' income is bonus and commission based. I know this because I used to be paid in nothing but commission and bonuses. When a lot of money is on the line, temptation to go for the easy money is there. And as the baby boomer generation is starting to inherit massive sums of wealth from their parents, there will be plenty more money that will be thrown at this growing industry.
But when everything goes right, and you are a client that the banks would consider a high value client, you may really feel that you are well taken care of. Plus building a good relationship with your advisor can make all the difference in the world. Sadly, in many cases it takes a large amount of money to get an appointment with a really good financial planner. The more money you have, the more attention you will likely get from your advisor.
In conclusion, I suppose that many people could be richer than they think if they did take some of the advice that is out there. When you become richer, so do they, as their fees will always be a percentage of how much money you have. However, I can't say if Scotiabank's version of financial advice is better than anyone else's, as everyone's situation may be different. I think it's best that everyone finds out for themselves, and a little research can go a long way in being confident that you are doing what's best for you.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Mayoral Forum
One of my school assignments this week was to sit in on the media forum which featured Winnipeg Mayoral candidates Judy Wasylycia-Leis and Sam Katz. This event was basically part press conference, part town hall meeting, part debate, and part school yard mudslinging. As I am working on my quote and sourcing techniques for journalism, I put pen to paper in an effort to grab as much of the juicy stuff as I could.
Having never been to an event like this before, I found it to be quite fascinating, and a little entertaining. The two candidates seemed to show very little admiration for each other, as evident in some of their quotes. Below are some of my favorites.
On the subject of rapid transit as a priority in both candidates’ platforms, Wasylycia-Leis said “ The biggest problem in this city is a mayor who doesn’t keep his word on rapid transit.”
In response to Wasylycia-Leis’ constant pressing about the secrecy of the ‘contract’ the city supposedly has for water and waste treatment management, Katz said “It’s time to teach all the candidates that run for mayor how a city works.”
Adding, "when this becomes a reality, I would be happy to share all the information on this sewage treatment plan."
It seemed to me(and possibly to Sam Katz) that Wasylysa-Leis kept beating a dead horse on that one. In another sermon of her's on the alleged '30 year deal', Katz had to interrupt her to say "For the record there is no agreement like I already said." adding "Council Voted to save us money, not sign a deal."
I suppose if Katz was able to give a much more updated picture on what official stage the waste management and treatment 'deal' situation was at, he may have put the subject to bed a lot sooner.
Instead he said things like "thanks mom" in response to Wasylycia-Lies 'put your plan on the table!' browbeating.
Sam Katz appeared to be good at working the room. Drawing several cheers from the audience which largely consisted of CreComm students. At one point when he was naming off his top three priorities to accomplish if elected, which included a nod to getting an NHL team in Winnipeg, and drew big applause among the crowd.
With the Civic election coming right around the corner, I'm finding myself getting very interested in the outcome...
j
Having never been to an event like this before, I found it to be quite fascinating, and a little entertaining. The two candidates seemed to show very little admiration for each other, as evident in some of their quotes. Below are some of my favorites.
On the subject of rapid transit as a priority in both candidates’ platforms, Wasylycia-Leis said “ The biggest problem in this city is a mayor who doesn’t keep his word on rapid transit.”
In response to Wasylycia-Leis’ constant pressing about the secrecy of the ‘contract’ the city supposedly has for water and waste treatment management, Katz said “It’s time to teach all the candidates that run for mayor how a city works.”
Adding, "when this becomes a reality, I would be happy to share all the information on this sewage treatment plan."
It seemed to me(and possibly to Sam Katz) that Wasylysa-Leis kept beating a dead horse on that one. In another sermon of her's on the alleged '30 year deal', Katz had to interrupt her to say "For the record there is no agreement like I already said." adding "Council Voted to save us money, not sign a deal."
I suppose if Katz was able to give a much more updated picture on what official stage the waste management and treatment 'deal' situation was at, he may have put the subject to bed a lot sooner.
Instead he said things like "thanks mom" in response to Wasylycia-Lies 'put your plan on the table!' browbeating.
Sam Katz appeared to be good at working the room. Drawing several cheers from the audience which largely consisted of CreComm students. At one point when he was naming off his top three priorities to accomplish if elected, which included a nod to getting an NHL team in Winnipeg, and drew big applause among the crowd.
With the Civic election coming right around the corner, I'm finding myself getting very interested in the outcome...
j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)