It seems to escape the rest of the public; the performer/singer is just a small ingredient in a hit. And a hit starts a career. Several hits means real career. I have arguments with friends in the business (Little Joe) that I place too much importance on hits. For me it's 99% of the job needed to launch someone.

In order of importance for me... 1) Producer, 2) Writers, 3) Musicians, 4) Engineer, 5) singer/performer.

Then - if and after a HIT, 1) Manager, 2) Promotion, 3) Label, 4) Agent, 5) PR

I totally agree with you about hits, the charts are currently full of forgettable songs most of which are below standard in most areas. "Popular music" no longer appeals to a wide audience and I really can't see there being a renaissance of this musical era as there have been for others.

That's a difficult list to put in order. I would personally put the writer ahead of the producer as I think you need the raw hit first, then the producer raises it to another level. Having said that, a good producer should find the songs and recognise the hit potential so in that case he/she would need to be first. IMO there are too many producers who think they're songwriters these days which they are not, hence a decline in the standard of writing, same goes for singer/performers dragging that standard lower.

If a one-hit-wonder is acceptable then putting the singer/performer at the bottom of the list is OK but for a sustained career they need to be higher on your agenda. I wouldn't personally want to waste my energies, time and money on an act who disappears after a short run of success.

Surely you need the promotion and PR on the first list?

But if you have a charismatic and popular performer nobody notices if they cant sing and the song is lousy.

After the first few hits, yes, Honey. But to kick start a career you need that huge hit. And total drones can turn into charismatic performers - I remember Reg Dwight.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
But if you have a charismatic and popular performer nobody notices if they cant sing and the song is lousy.I disagree, many people at the top of their game have suffered due to poor songs. Look at Robbie Williams, he was the biggest UK export when he ditched Guy Chambers and released Rudebox and the rest is history. Yep he's back now but only 'cause he rode in on Take That's comeback success and he ain't half as big as he was.

JK2006 wrote:
It seems to escape the rest of the public; the performer/singer is just a small ingredient in a hit. And a hit starts a career. Several hits means real career. I have arguments with friends in the business (Little Joe) that I place too much importance on hits. For me it's 99% of the job needed to launch someone.

In order of importance for me... 1) Producer, 2) Writers, 3) Musicians, 4) Engineer, 5) singer/performer.

Then - if and after a HIT, 1) Manager, 2) Promotion, 3) Label, 4) Agent, 5) PR

The third stage interests me these days. What is the order if you've had lots of hits, and are an established star, but labels don't seem to push your releases and radio stations don't play you? Is it: 1)You, and, 2) er, that's it, apart from a bit of touring? Seems a shame when so much good music just gets ignored in favour of Cowell-style pap.


P.S. The Voice: congrats to the embattled producers - I couldn't sit through this in previous years but really like it this year. MUCH better chemistry among the judges, better acts, fewer female copycats (why DO so many young girls imitate their idols so religiously they actually obliterate their own personalities??) and Willis is much better than Willoughby. Well done!