c4countdown

Quincy Jones was (is) the king.
Not sure if he is still alive

Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:34 am In the genres you're talking about here, always.

It seems pretty arbitrary. I mean, when you look at, say, Fatboy Slim (another "DJ"), it's more obvious what his influence was. He took existing music and messed about with it, used bits repetitively etc. But some of Avicii's things are just songs. Sure you might put them in this genre rather than that one, but e.g. Wake Me Up is just a song.

And who wrote the song? Who wrote the bass line, the drums, the synths, the intertwining melodies, the song structure?

Avicii, Mike Einziger and Aloe Blacc.

Einziger played the guitar and Blacc sang the words. The rest?

I can't tell if you're trying to talk it down arbitrarily or if you really do not understand the role of a producer in electronic music. Move away from the idea that the "DJ" is the man who chooses what records get played at weddings, this isn't that.

The Wikipedia article says the other two were involved in writing it too but yeah I suppose he might have done most of it.

Still, he was no George Michael.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:03 pmI just want to return to the discussion of this briefly. With someone like George Michael, he sang songs. It was obvious what his contribution was. But I'm not entirely sure what Avicii actually did. As far as I'm aware he was a "DJ". OK, let's go to the Wikipedia. Take the song "Wake Me Up" - I've just looked it up on the Wikipedia and it says ""Wake Me Up" was written by Avicii, Mike Einziger, and Aloe Blacc. American soul singer Aloe Blacc provides vocals for the track and Mike Einziger of Incubus provides acoustic guitar." Is this enough for it to be "by Avicii"?

Like Mark, I'm a little bit bemused at your inability to grasp this. I get that some people aren't really interested in the music industry, but we're dealing with very simple concepts here. I suspect you're being wilfully obtuse to make some sort of point, but anyway I'll try to explain.

To take your example, "Wake Me Up" is described as being "by" Avicii because it was marketed under his artist name. In the music industry, this is what is meant by a track being "by" a particular artist. It's a marketing decision and nothing to do with who wrote or produced the track. If the record company (who whoever) decided that it would be more effectively marketed under the artist name "Avicii & Aloe Black", then it would have been released as such and therefore would have been described as being "by" Avicii & Aloe Black. In a parallel universe where Mike Einziger is a huge star, it might have been released as by "Mike Einziger (with Avicii)"; basically it all depends on which name is perceived as the biggest draw.

Does that make more sense? I can provide some well-known examples from the past if you like.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:03 pmImagine how many number ones Stock, Aitken and Waterman would have if things always worked like that...

I don't think that takes a great deal of imagination. The answer is...almost certainly none. They wrote and produced songs for attractive, popular young stars like Kylie Minogue and Jason Donovan who could be effectively marketed to pop fans. It would have been a much bigger stretch to sell a group of three not particularly attractive middle-aged men who (at the time) few people had heard of, even if the songs were the same.

JimBentley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:19 am It would have been a much bigger stretch to sell a group of three not particularly attractive middle-aged men who (at the time) few people had heard of, even if the songs were the same.

They did get to #13 with Roadblock, which then got sampled and taken to #1 by M/A/R/R/S, so they weren't far off

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:03 pm

JimBentley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:19 am It would have been a much bigger stretch to sell a group of three not particularly attractive middle-aged men who (at the time) few people had heard of, even if the songs were the same.

They did get to #13 with Roadblock, which then got sampled and taken to #1 by M/A/R/R/S, so they weren't far off

"Roadblock" is a great record, but (as I'm sure you'll remember) it became a hit pretty much anonymously. It certainly wasn't originally released under their own name and only became a de facto SAW release retrospectively (possibly once it had got into the top 20). I actually remember Pete Waterman making the same point at the time, that it would never have been such a success had they put it out as "Stock Aitken & Waterman".

JimBentley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:19 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:03 pmI just want to return to the discussion of this briefly. With someone like George Michael, he sang songs. It was obvious what his contribution was. But I'm not entirely sure what Avicii actually did. As far as I'm aware he was a "DJ". OK, let's go to the Wikipedia. Take the song "Wake Me Up" - I've just looked it up on the Wikipedia and it says ""Wake Me Up" was written by Avicii, Mike Einziger, and Aloe Blacc. American soul singer Aloe Blacc provides vocals for the track and Mike Einziger of Incubus provides acoustic guitar." Is this enough for it to be "by Avicii"?

Like Mark, I'm a little bit bemused at your inability to grasp this. I get that some people aren't really interested in the music industry, but we're dealing with very simple concepts here. I suspect you're being wilfully obtuse to make some sort of point, but anyway I'll try to explain.

Well, thank you for explanation, but while you are bemused by my inability to grasp this, your explanation is completely different from Mark's.

To take your example, "Wake Me Up" is described as being "by" Avicii because it was marketed under his artist name. In the music industry, this is what is meant by a track being "by" a particular artist. It's a marketing decision and nothing to do with who wrote or produced the track. If the record company (who whoever) decided that it would be more effectively marketed under the artist name "Avicii & Aloe Black", then it would have been released as such and therefore would have been described as being "by" Avicii & Aloe Black. In a parallel universe where Mike Einziger is a huge star, it might have been released as by "Mike Einziger (with Avicii)"; basically it all depends on which name is perceived as the biggest draw.

Does that make more sense? I can provide some well-known examples from the past if you like.

It does make more sense, but it does also suggest to me that Avicii was a very marketable guy, and maybe more so than a few of the fat, bald and middle-aged producers to also helped make the music attributed to him. Going back to my original point in all this, George Michael was a proper frontman and his contribution was much clearer.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:56 pmWell, thank you for explanation, but while you are bemused by my inability to grasp this, your explanation is completely different from Mark's.

No, our explanations just started from different places. I was being a bit more brutal and back to basics, assuming that you genuinely were completely clueless and your brain didn't work properly. Mark started his explanation assuming that you actually understood at least the basis of how the music industry works (which was obviously a mistake in retrospect) but we're essentially describing different aspects of the same thing.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:56 pmIt does make more sense, but it does also suggest to me that Avicii was a very marketable guy, and maybe more so than a few of the fat, bald and middle-aged producers to also helped make the music attributed to him.

I was never a massive fan of Avicii but I'm pretty sure that music-wise, he did his own thing, there wouldn't be record company interference in the actual tracks. Sure, some fat, bald, middle-aged people might have been involved at his record company in advertising and marketing and stuff once the tracks were released, but not in the actual recordings.

JimBentley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:54 pm

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 12:03 pm

JimBentley wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:19 am It would have been a much bigger stretch to sell a group of three not particularly attractive middle-aged men who (at the time) few people had heard of, even if the songs were the same.

They did get to #13 with Roadblock, which then got sampled and taken to #1 by M/A/R/R/S, so they weren't far off

"Roadblock" is a great record, but (as I'm sure you'll remember) it became a hit pretty much anonymously. It certainly wasn't originally released under their own name and only became a de facto SAW release retrospectively (possibly once it had got into the top 20). I actually remember Pete Waterman making the same point at the time, that it would never have been such a success had they put it out as "Stock Aitken & Waterman".

They might not have actively promoted it, but I don't remember it being credited differently at any point.

Ian Volante wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:12 pmThey might not have actively promoted it, but I don't remember it being credited differently at any point.

From Pete Waterman's autobiography:

Pete Waterman wrote:We decided to put “Roadblock” out, pretending it was a bootleg, just to see what would happen. We vowed not to tell a soul who had made the record. We pressed a thousand copies and just put the word “Roadblock” on the sleeve, together with a New York phone number, which happened to be the number of my lawyer over there. Unfortunately when we got the thousand copies back from being pressed, we saw that Malcom Davies, who’d pressed them, had put “PRT” the name of the pressing company, on the run-out of the record – which gave the game away, identifying its origin. We knew that once people saw that, they’d be able to trace the record back to us, so I got a soldering iron and I sat there and scratched out every single matrix mark on every single record, making them completely anonymous. Anyone who has got one of the original copies will see that every bit of identifying information has been scratched out.

JimBentley wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:36 pm

Ah cool, thanks!

Rutger Hauer RIP