God
Creator of the Universe
ill o.g.
I read a post by Relic on the "Lollipop" thread -- and he raised an interesting question. Why the fuck do so many people like a song that overtly shows no inherent value? The song in question is "Lollipop" by Lil' Wayne. Then LDB raised the other obvious point-- the song is essentially about fucking-- shit you want to do on X, people like it, and they listen to it. He's straight about that.
Now what I'm about to say is opinion, nothing is proven true. The fact is that a song, if repeated 1,000 times on the radio will condition us to think it's good because radio spins=social proof. More radio spins, the "better" the song is, because more spins=more people supposedly listen to song=higher social proof. We pre-select things w/higher social proof as things that are "better".
I know backmasking has been used since the 50's in music (or earlier), the movie industry has inserted subliminal messages in movies since the 30's.
I did a quick search on Google and found some links to backmasking-- the craziest one being on Britney Spears "One More Time." It's fucked up. Here's the link: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/backmask/
Anyway, I was stuck on the fucking success of the idiotic song "Lollipop." Same with "Umbrella" by Rihanna-- which -- a friend told me... "that's an ode to gynecology dude, listen to it again with that frame." So I listened to the words and read the lyrics "Umbrella" sounds like an ode to the clitoris and the song is about fucking and cumming. I thought my buddy was out of his mind when he was saying this. But it's blatantly obvious to me now-- if I listen to it with that frame of mind. Obviously this can't be "proven" These songs are stupid in core essence, yet.
Anyway, I was sitting down with some friends, one of them was a songwriter/producer who has written some popular stuff. I asked him about it. He admitted that you can do it, but it's not worth the time. Plus, the melody is what make the song good-- the double usage of words is old, he said, and you can use sounds to "anchor" people. He said a song like "Umbrella" and others, use a "post-chorus" where the repetition of a statement, like "Yeah" or in the case of "Umbrella" "-ella" "ella" ay"-- during a nice musical interlude going after a chorus "anchors" the chorus in your head while giving your mind "space" to assimilate what was said in the chorus and verse. He said that when you write a song and "attack" the brain with too many words the sound space gets "cluttered". He said that choruses used to be the place where you assimilated the VERSE in your brain during an easy sing-a-long chorus. But since there was always "singing" of some sort in the song, your brain got "attacked" with "word clutter", or some shit.
At this point, I was looking at the dude-- I'm not that fucking stupid to be brainwashed by a song-- you can't do psychology in 3 minutes and fuck with a person.
But he said that there's been a tendency to use a post chorus that repeats the same line/word over and over, or repetitive riff with some form of repetitive statement of a word after a chorus. It has to be somewhat pleasing-- but even if you make the music "unoffensive"-- anchoring a riff with a word after the chorus ingrains the CHORUS rather than the verse in your head by giving time for your brain to "breathe" after being "attacked" with words during the song. Since it is easier to remember the chorus, the post chorus "leads" you to remember the song by anchoring the chorus and the catchy "post chorus together." He said the post chorus should have something that is based on "feeling" rather than words, using "yeah" is the best example since it recites something that has positive connotations with it.
He blamed the success of Lollipop on Lil' Wayne's budget and then talked some shit about how he wished they would throw some bread his way. He said, unless I was an idiot, that "lollipop" is an obvious anchor for "dick" which in turn is an entire song about having sex with a woman. The words used in the song are explicit, but elicit "feelings" in the listener that are connotated to sex. But the words have "plausible deniability" because it uses "safe" words which are not explicit so it is "okay" to listen to the song, especially for a woman who doesn't want to be viewed as a slut, but have sexual thoughts during the song without feeling bad about it. He said that he was attempting to rationalize it but it could very well not be rationalized.
This seriously fucked with me, bc dude knows what he's doing-- I just didn't think it was THAT scientific. Some of the stuff may be overthought, but it brought out some interesting shit.
Thought that needed a mention in the producers' forum. WTF do you think about this shit?
Now what I'm about to say is opinion, nothing is proven true. The fact is that a song, if repeated 1,000 times on the radio will condition us to think it's good because radio spins=social proof. More radio spins, the "better" the song is, because more spins=more people supposedly listen to song=higher social proof. We pre-select things w/higher social proof as things that are "better".
I know backmasking has been used since the 50's in music (or earlier), the movie industry has inserted subliminal messages in movies since the 30's.
I did a quick search on Google and found some links to backmasking-- the craziest one being on Britney Spears "One More Time." It's fucked up. Here's the link: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/backmask/
Anyway, I was stuck on the fucking success of the idiotic song "Lollipop." Same with "Umbrella" by Rihanna-- which -- a friend told me... "that's an ode to gynecology dude, listen to it again with that frame." So I listened to the words and read the lyrics "Umbrella" sounds like an ode to the clitoris and the song is about fucking and cumming. I thought my buddy was out of his mind when he was saying this. But it's blatantly obvious to me now-- if I listen to it with that frame of mind. Obviously this can't be "proven" These songs are stupid in core essence, yet.
Anyway, I was sitting down with some friends, one of them was a songwriter/producer who has written some popular stuff. I asked him about it. He admitted that you can do it, but it's not worth the time. Plus, the melody is what make the song good-- the double usage of words is old, he said, and you can use sounds to "anchor" people. He said a song like "Umbrella" and others, use a "post-chorus" where the repetition of a statement, like "Yeah" or in the case of "Umbrella" "-ella" "ella" ay"-- during a nice musical interlude going after a chorus "anchors" the chorus in your head while giving your mind "space" to assimilate what was said in the chorus and verse. He said that when you write a song and "attack" the brain with too many words the sound space gets "cluttered". He said that choruses used to be the place where you assimilated the VERSE in your brain during an easy sing-a-long chorus. But since there was always "singing" of some sort in the song, your brain got "attacked" with "word clutter", or some shit.
At this point, I was looking at the dude-- I'm not that fucking stupid to be brainwashed by a song-- you can't do psychology in 3 minutes and fuck with a person.
But he said that there's been a tendency to use a post chorus that repeats the same line/word over and over, or repetitive riff with some form of repetitive statement of a word after a chorus. It has to be somewhat pleasing-- but even if you make the music "unoffensive"-- anchoring a riff with a word after the chorus ingrains the CHORUS rather than the verse in your head by giving time for your brain to "breathe" after being "attacked" with words during the song. Since it is easier to remember the chorus, the post chorus "leads" you to remember the song by anchoring the chorus and the catchy "post chorus together." He said the post chorus should have something that is based on "feeling" rather than words, using "yeah" is the best example since it recites something that has positive connotations with it.
He blamed the success of Lollipop on Lil' Wayne's budget and then talked some shit about how he wished they would throw some bread his way. He said, unless I was an idiot, that "lollipop" is an obvious anchor for "dick" which in turn is an entire song about having sex with a woman. The words used in the song are explicit, but elicit "feelings" in the listener that are connotated to sex. But the words have "plausible deniability" because it uses "safe" words which are not explicit so it is "okay" to listen to the song, especially for a woman who doesn't want to be viewed as a slut, but have sexual thoughts during the song without feeling bad about it. He said that he was attempting to rationalize it but it could very well not be rationalized.
This seriously fucked with me, bc dude knows what he's doing-- I just didn't think it was THAT scientific. Some of the stuff may be overthought, but it brought out some interesting shit.
Thought that needed a mention in the producers' forum. WTF do you think about this shit?
