isn't the music (as any fule kno when you hear Bruno Mars or Rihanna or the best of Gaga) but how to break it; and it's not so much how to break it but how to know, before massive expenditure, WHICH to break.

I was always ruthless at UK Records - I had to be certain (by watching patterns of sales reactions to exposure) that the tracks I believed were hits (all of them) had true commercial mass appeal (very few). We simply didn't have the budget to work flops.

I try to do the same with iTunes but it's very difficult; for a start, it's hard to get any real response until you have serious exposure and that is now so diluted, it's hard to see.

For example, after 90,000 odd views for Don't Let Him Touch You on You Tube, there were quite a few dozen sales but not enough to be certain I could break it. And what more can one get on a single? Likewise Don't Forget Me When You're On Your Island - it seems like a hit, from the signs from over 6000 You Tube views - but how to be sure and how to spread it?

We need a real sign of potential mass popularity.

Incidentally, nobody else seemed able to do my trick in the 60s and 70s either - which was why the majors spent millions buying chart places for flops (and killed our industry).

But didn't you only have two top 10 hits (off your own bat), between 1965 and 1987? Yet they still brought in sufficient revenue over that time frame to keep your head above water.

Look at Mungo Jerry for example: he's been supporting a wife,two kids and paid his mortgage from being a one-hit-wonder with "In The Summertime".

As you admit, in the current hi-tec commercial paradigm there doesn't seem to be any noticeable correlation between what people like when it's given to them for free, and what they'd actualy stick their hands in their pockets to pay for!

I reckon the future of popular music lies in licensing rights and the royalties that flow back from airplay. I'm not sure if YouTube pays PRS or PPL anything from its advertising income - perhaps being an 'insider' you could shed some light on that Ken?

Hits under pseudonyms (Shag, Piglets, Weathermen, Sakkarin etc) but most of my income came from productions or licensed hits and sellers by Genesis, 10cc, the Rocky Horror Show soundtrack etc.

Yes, You Tube do pay (a tiny amount).

I kind of disagree here. I think the problem IS the music. Its an emperor's new clothes situation in the industry where no one will actually admit that the artists that are current today churn out stuff that is of a lower quality than back in the day. Yet its blatantly the case. There are several major issues:

1) Firstly if we stick purely to mainstream pop, the charts seem to be dominated by very similar artists. Legions of generic female artists crooning bland soul/dance stuff with an image apeing the spice girls or Kylie; male artists copying Justin Timberlake or Take That and generic rap stuff. All of these types of artist take themselves very seriously and believe that they deserve success because they work hard. However they sound very similar.

2) Out of the window has gone any sense of fun. With the exception of one or two chart acts like Lady Gaga. The idea of having a laugh, winding people up, taking daft risks with costumes and lyrics - all gone!

3) Also gone is any innovation in terms of style or content. Its all the flippin' same. In the 70s & 80s there were new music trends every few years or so. Not now.

4) Also gone is the concept of a good tune. A catchy melody. The same bland soul crooning abounds with no catchy melodies.

5) If you then look beyond the mainstream to the so-called 'indie' scene its even worse. Bland guitar bands with nothing to say who also sound the same. There are no innovative bands like the Smiths or even Suede anymore. There hasn't been a good innovative new indie band breaking through for over ten years.

6) Part of the problem is the dominance of the X Factor as the means of breaking new artists. To win the competition you have to be a vacuous drone. I accept that occasionally they break really good, fun acts like Jedward. But more often than not its dullards like Shane Ward who soon get forgotten.

Hamlet wrote:
I kind of disagree here. I think the problem IS the music. Its an emperor's new clothes situation in the industry where no one will actually admit that the artists that are current today churn out stuff that is of a lower quality than back in the day. Yet its blatantly the case. There are several major issues:

1) Firstly if we stick purely to mainstream pop, the charts seem to be dominated by very similar artists. Legions of generic female artists crooning bland soul/dance stuff with an image apeing the spice girls or Kylie; male artists copying Justin Timberlake or Take That and generic rap stuff. All of these types of artist take themselves very seriously and believe that they deserve success because they work hard. However they sound very similar.

2) Out of the window has gone any sense of fun. With the exception of one or two chart acts like Lady Gaga. The idea of having a laugh, winding people up, taking daft risks with costumes and lyrics - all gone!

3) Also gone is any innovation in terms of style or content. Its all the flippin' same. In the 70s & 80s there were new music trends every few years or so. Not now.

4) Also gone is the concept of a good tune. A catchy melody. The same bland soul crooning abounds with no catchy melodies.

5) If you then look beyond the mainstream to the so-called 'indie' scene its even worse. Bland guitar bands with nothing to say who also sound the same. There are no innovative bands like the Smiths or even Suede anymore. There hasn't been a good innovative new indie band breaking through for over ten years.

6) Part of the problem is the dominance of the X Factor as the means of breaking new artists. To win the competition you have to be a vacuous drone. I accept that occasionally they break really good, fun acts like Jedward. But more often than not its dullards like Shane Ward who soon get forgotten.

I sort of agree with this. The music today isn't as good as back in the 70s and 80s and hence that is why it doesn't sell anywhere near as much. A song that reached no 17 back in the late 70s would be a sure-fire no. 1 now based n record sals (Shooting Star - Dollar). Any decent tunes that come out today are only vaguely good because they sample songs from the 70s or 80s. There is very little new stuff out thats any good, This is why Take That can come back after 10 years and sell out stadiums, because there is no competition. There are a few few interesting acts (Artic Monkeys, The Libertines, Lady Gaga). I don't think any of them will have any staying power.

JK2006 wrote:
[quote](...) it's not so much how to break it but how to know, before massive expenditure, WHICH to break.

We need a real sign of potential mass popularity.quote]

The main difference between then and now is that in the last century a producer / a label could earn real money when a record "broke".

Today the "mainstream" is just another niche market, so the potential "mass" audience is much smaller (viewers of X Factor and similar shows).

And there is no longer a connection between mass popularity and big sales. And if there is a sale it is of only one song, not an album.

So the trick will be to find a way to make (more) money from the "signs of potential mass popularity" (YouTube plays for example): to monetize the ways the audience is consuming music now and in the future.

The old concept of "breaking" a song (of one hit earning the money for the 90 per cent of releases which aren't hits) will work in fewer and fewer cases. That's why Universal Music et al. can make as many cuts as they want: it will never be enough to bring the costs in a reasonable proportion to the fast sinking revenues.

What a fantastic post and a few interesting comments to boot.

Well for one I think it is down to producers and writers to stop copying the bland American sound which is a rip off of 90s dance
music and make music like they did in the 80s, 70s and 60s. Make music you love and stop trying so hard to make hits. They will come
as you make music you love.

As for breaking the acts well I agree and disagree.

Problem is not in how to break them as there is ample evidence to show that it is easy to break the right act and it is cheaper
than ever before.

Rebecca Black, Subo cost very little to break internationally as they broke online and it was a dead cert a hit when released officially (in Subo's case).

The problem is quality. Sadly I have to admit as an artist, producer and writer that we don't see real stars anywhere. Most are carbon copies
of famous people and most don't like music but fame and there are easier ways to get fame. But all is not lost. We can't go any lower
than we are now so it is time to build the right foundation but to do that would mean an approach outside of the mainstream because they will not
accept change without a fight.

Like with punk and dance music, systems outside of radio, tv and press need to exist and be built up until there is a force big enough to
shock the mainstream.

Also the sales model looks dead and buried and in its place is the streaming for peanuts model which will only become profitable once EVERYTHING
is streaming and monetised.

By the way where is BR?

Djones makes some very interesting points.

The buying market is different and their needs are different. We need to pay attention to them
and not forget that all in all pop music is pretty much safe, mainstream and conservative but today
many pop records are very niche (for example dance music). Nothing really appeals to all ages anymore.
I think James Blunt was the last one (im sure there are more like him). Eurovision manages to do it
but there isn't a sales spike (not here in Australia) but young and old alike love it. I think therein
lies the answer.
Let's not forget the MOR market which always thrives during music's dark ages