Why I listen to Top 40


Posted August 21st, 2009 by Dan

I listen to top 40 music. Exclusively. This is not a joke.

I do this because I like good music. I like well written, well produced, well mixed music. I like hearing the most talented artists. I like hearing the bands and artists who are at the top, because they are the best. This is what top 40 radio affords me.

How do I know what the best music out is at any given time: I look at the Billboard charts. I ignore anything below 40. It’s that easy. I know it is the best music out because it is the most purchased, or most played, or both.

There are certain self-proclaimed music mavens out who would find this view repugnant. I think you know who I’m talking about. Despite never writing a song or learning to play an instrument, they are somehow an authority on music composition. They love bands you’ve never heard of, precisely for that reason. They’ve got a music blog where they use ambiguous descriptions like “spatial”, “dichotomous”, and “neo-post-emocore” to describe simple, boring music. If they review an album from a band you’ve heard of, it’s mediocre and disappointing. If it’s from a band you’ve never heard of, it’s amazing. These people get off on criticizing success and promoting failure.

Among this community of success hating contrarians, Pitchfork Media is King. Check out their Best New Music section. Now take a good hard look at these unknowns because you will never see or hear from them again. Sure, they may continue to record albums for the rest of their lives, but you won’t ever hear about them because they will suck. Pitchfork picks losers and parades them around like heroes fighting against the crushing oppression of the music industry and cultural ignorance. A shitty band’s determination to carry on in the midst of constant failure and lack of any significant fan support is what makes them so great and worthy of exposure in the eyes of the contrarians. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that there is no real oppression, no cultural ignorance, and no conspiracy that keeps these bands underground. They don’t succeed because their music blows. End of story.

If an independent band really has better music than what’s already out there, you don’t have to dredge the gutters of indie blog-dom to hear them. Labels find and sign the best independent artists because they are already setting trends and garnering fans. By necessity, they have to find the next big thing in order to stay in business at a time when music consumers have endless choices.

Despite the ramblings of music industry outsiders, record labels can’t control what music people will like. They can’t control what songs people will like. If they could, they wouldn’t spend millions on market research before promoting songs to radio. When consumers literally have the entirety of all recorded music, past and present, at their fingertips (read iTunes, Lala, Spotify), it’s ridiculous to believe that the major labels and corporate radio stations conspire to control what we listen to. Major labels still dominate the airwaves because they have a product people want: new music from the best artists.

Music snobs like to deride popular commercial music: “It’s manufactured”, “It’s simple and clichéd and formulaic”, and “It all sounds the same.” Well guess what:

1. Yes, it is manufactured, in the same way Ferraris are manufactured. Record labels sign the most talented and charismatic artists. Then they hire the very best songwriters. Then they get the most distinguished producers. Then they go into the the best studios, with the best engineers, and have the best studio musicians play on the record. Then the very best mix engineers finish it off. What comes out is as close to musical perfection as you can get.

2. Good music IS simple and clichéd. Pop songs use the same chord progressions over and over because they sound good. They allow for powerful vocal melodies and hooks. And yes, pop songs often have “trite” lyrics. That is because they talk about universal subjects that people can relate to. A good song doesn’t need an English professor, a classical composer, and some jackass with a blog to explain itself. A good song is self explanatory. You get it the first time you hear it, and you want to hear it again and again.

3. Contrary to the contrarians, Top 40 music does not all sound the same. Top 40 does not discriminate by genre. On any given day, you can hear Kings of Leon (indie), Kelly Clarkson (pop-rock), Black-Eyed Peas (cross-genre), Beyoncé (R&B), Kanye West (hip-hop), Matt Nathanson (acoustic), and Lady Gaga (electronica). When someone says that popular music all sounds the same, what they really mean is that it all sounds good. They mean it has better songs, better production, and higher sound quality than the music they listen to.

My favorite criticisms come directly from the shitty artists that write shitty music that nobody likes except for assholes that have record players. Rob and I usually get to produce awesome ass bands, but every now and then we are forced to polish some real turds. I often hear this statement from such turd makers: “I could write crap like that [commercial music] if I wanted to.”

No you couldn’t. If you could have you would have. Provided you weren’t too ugly or an idiot you would also have a marketable image. You would have some kind of following. If you had your shit together, you would have a manager who might be connected enough to get you an audience with a major. An if you really truly could write and perform commercial music, you would get signed and get a chance to be on top 40 radio, where millions of people would actually give a shit about your band. But you don’t have any of this. You don’t have anything.

See, the problem is not that bad indie bands don’t want to sell-out, it’s that they aren’t good enough to. Their best songs aren’t good enough. Even if they sat down specifically with the intent of writing a commercial song that would become a smash hit on top 40 radio, they would not be able to. These facts are bad news for the “true artists” who don’t want to “sell out”. Good music leads to money and fans. Not wanting to “sell out” is a self-fulfilling prophecy that can only lead to destitution and obscurity.

Not every basketball player can play in the NBA. Not every writer can be a best selling author. Not every employee becomes a CEO. And that’s the way it should be. The best always rise to the top because they are the most talented, most intelligent, and work the hardest. Kids don’t grow up wanting to be like bam-bam and knuck-knuck down at the street ball court, they grow up wanting to be like Kobe and LeBron. People don’t pay to read the neighborhood community newspaper, they pay to read Thomas Friedman and Nora Roberts. Companies don’t take direction from the mail boy, or Sharon in accounts receivable. They take direction from people like Steve Jobs.

We need to stop pretending the music industry is not subject to the same laws that drive all professions.  We need to stop pretending that the top artists are not the best artists. We need to stop pretending that the indie artists du jour like fleet foxes and Bon Iver are somehow in the same league as Coldplay and Justin Timberlake. These artists are at the top for a reason, make more money for a reason, and are much more well-known for a reason. Hands down, they are the best.

Next time you want to hear good music, skip the hype and noise from the chain-smoking Pabst Blue Ribbon crowd. Just do what I do:

1. Turn on your radio and find the Top 40 station (or stream from that station’s website).
2. Enjoy.

Don’t waste your time on losers.

Bookmark and Share


  • bill
    hey fuck you, faggot.
  • Nazz
    Well, where to begin.... Top 40 does not mean timeless. I.E. What 16 year old kid is going to pop in Toto's "Africa" and talk about what an awesome song it is? Though how many kids will discover Neil Young's "Harvest"?
    This is a symptom of development is not something that is on the table for artists anymore, meaning that the artists who aren't in the top 40 today are not supported anymore to keep on making records that will sale go top 40. Look back 20 years ago, how many bands would have failed at putting out successful records with out the help of say David Geffen?? He as a label would sign an artist he believed in and then stick with them if their first or second record didn't go gold, and beyond sales aid in creating records that have shelf life?
    While back to this decade, take an artist like all american rejects. Is that a timeless record? Will someone hear "Give you Hell" in 20 years as a fresh, young listener and TRULY totally connect to it? Maybe? It's possible. I'm betting no. The same way that a 16 year old isn't going to dig Toto because on top of sounding REALLY dated (because just as now that was a decade in which technology overran music under the guise of a "Technology Evolution"), as a song its just not that cool. Listen to the above mentioned Neil Young record, while not sound incredibly recent certain less obsurd and more attainable than a TOTO record and certainly the songs are MUCH more relatable. Coupled on to the fact, its a total win for a label their still selling a reasonable amount of copies of that record FORTY years later. Slow but the development made it count.
    Basically we are in a VERY shitty trend of paralleled to that of the 80's labels are not interested in making CAREER artists. 4 records. Maybe. 5 tops. Thats the difference and once that mindset, as it has in the past, decide that they are not in to the longevity of the artists career the artist selection and willingness to go that extra mile to make a "decent" record a "good" one and a "good" record a "great" record then, 1.) The music hits the shitter and 2.) The diluted sap having his face (although surely willingly) pretty much can kiss a career as a serious artist goodbye. Anyway drop that in da' tools and BD it.
  • pimpfresh
    First off, Toto is fucking awesome. I stand by that.

    But yes, I lament the current trend of not investing in artists for the long run. I think it is a result of the label's terrible response to internet downloading, and not shifting their profit models.

    I can finally admit that this article is slightly tongue in cheek, as yes, I do listen to lots of other music besides top 40. And I am definitely a fan of indie labels who are reaching out with new technologies and new profit models. I think they are either A) forcing the Majors to change and/or B) Making the Majors irrelevant to some degree.

    My primary worry is that with the new tech era that offers so much choice and access, we won't have any "classic" artists anymore. There is literally too much music to discover, and no one definitive source. This is good in a way, because it democratizes music so good bands with good work ethic can build a following without the help of a major. But in this day and age, how do thousands of people follow a new band through multiple albums? It's pretty difficult to keep their attention with so much noise out there.
  • christhesoundguy
    This has been a great read. I would like to try a bit of a summary of your thoughts and see what you think of my comments to them.

    Summary of your thoughts: Great pop/rock music equal great singers + great producers + great musicians + great songwriters.
    My thoughts: Good bands do not equal good music. A singer/songwriter like Bob Dylan has great stuff and I consider much more of an artist that pop bands who write little of their own material. But I think this gets into a side argument of top 40 music is not always performed by great artists. I think a great artist (musically), write and sings their own stuff and does a great job of it.

    Summary of your thoughts: Listen to top 40
    Mine: A bit too many genre's. I want pop, not rap, or this or that, don't give me all of it. Top 40 is turning into MOR (radio-speak for middle-of-the-road which means something for everyone).

    In the end, the question to ask is how do I determine the quality of a song? Is it defined as the best of the best working together? Is it defined as a band that writes/sings/performs their own stuff + great production?
  • pimpfresh
    So it seems your belief is that the best music is created when the original songwriter performs the songs. I agree that there is definitely a special connection between the song writer and the song and it can be magic when that person is a great performer. But I believe that many great songwriters are not great performers, and vice versa. Does this disqualify them from making good music? What about Elvis? What about Madonna? What about bands where the primary songwriter is not the lead singer? Are they unqualified to make good music?

    I do admit that the "best-of-the-best" working together can sometimes produce sub-par results, but sub-par results are the standard for most independent artists. I feel like the ultimate test should be the music itself...how it makes you feel, what it means to you. This, I believe, should not be judged based on who wrote or performed the song, but just the product itself.

    Regarding the genres, there are some easy ways to filter out Top 40 music you don't want to hear. Satellite radio has some awesome stations. I also like lala.com and spotify online.
  • christhesoundguy
    It's just hard to quantify great music because it's different things to different people. Try defining great music!

    I think what I'm trying to say is that a great song isn't necessarily proof that the person performing it is a great artist. A great artist might yield a "best of" album while an artist with a great song might be a "one hit wonder." Therefore, when you define "best music" you have to separate the music from the artist. I'd rather be known as a great artist, not as a one-hit wonder.

    I'm just trying to show the other side of the "best music" argument that it de-humanizes the artists behind the music.
  • kevinfucktherobotsidea
    you have a point from a megalo-capitalist robotic point of view... Ewwwww. Have a soul!
  • pimpfresh
    robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends. robots are your friends.
  • The main issue I have with terrestrial radio is the agonizing commercials and bad DJs. Other than that, you make great points.
  • robkischuk
    In spite of the claimed seriousness, I remain hopeful that this is a giant sarcastic joke.

    In the mean time, I am going to use the BEST operating system (Windows, duh) and the best web browser (Internet Explorer) to order the best pizza (Papa John's, clearly) while I watch the best movie ever, Titanic.

    Perhaps tomorrow I can buy the best car ever (the Toyota Camry - since people don't buy as many G35's, I've decided that my G must be overrated) and dine at the best restaurant (McDonalds) before heading home and spending the rest of the weekend watching a DVR marathon of the best television shows of the past year, American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.

    I hope to see you in traffic next week on the best road in Atlanta, I-285.
  • pimpfresh
    I understand the point you are making about the perception of what "best" means, and it is somewhat valid. But I think that you have mis-construed my argument to mean that we should not have options at all, except for the "best." A true market requires choice, and consumers make decisions based on a variety of factors that make them value things differently.

    But most of the examples you give are valuations of products WITHOUT CONSIDERING THEIR PRICE. It is clear that Mcdonald's, Papa John's, and Toyota Camrys are not objectively the "best" products you can buy in their respective categories, despite being the best selling overall. Your G35 COSTS MORE than a Camry, and you are willing to pay for the extra luxury and performance (I'm guessing it performs better....I drive a 1994 Ford Taurus). Likewise, most people realize you can get better food than Mcdonald's, but it also costs more, or isn't as convenient, or both.

    I believe that the music industry should adopt this market structure, where the less popular artists sell their music for less (of course, most indie artists give away their crap for free nowadays). But because copyrighted music is not a physical product (and neither are movies), the industry has developed a different price structure. Essentially, all music is priced the same (99 cents on itunes, or some subscription fee per month, or 10 cents for streaming on lala). In this arrangement, the "Bentleys" get a disproportionate amount of the money because they are priced like Camrys, so everybody can afford them. But shitty music that is worth far less, is also priced like a Camry, meaning that even less people will buy it. This of course, is unfair. But it does not change the fact that the best selling artists are "bentleys"! When prices are the same across the board, PEOPLE BUY MORE OF THE BETTER PRODUCT!

    Consider what would happen if Mcdonalds and Ruth's Chris Steakhouse charged the same prices. Everybody would eat at Ruth's Chris! Only a few idiots would rather eat at McDonalds. But this is exactly what indie snobs do! They claim that Mcdonald's is better than high-end restaurants.

    Regarding IE....47.9% of people now use Firefox. More than IE. http://bit.ly/2WdDGO See, the best always rise to the top:)
  • robkischuk
    I'll concede the Camry vs. G35 argument is tainted by price, but what about TV Shows? Is McDonald's the best food available at their prices? Is Papa John's the best pizza for the price? For that matter, is Coca-cola the best carbonated soft drink at its price? I didn't mean to contend that these are or should be our only option, but I did intend to challenge whether the top selling products in a category aren't implicitly the best. It's not a conspiracy, it's just capitalism.

    The music argument hinges largely on the definition of what the music industry's product is. I contend that the music industry's current product is not music, it is the total package of an artist, their songs, their image, their public persona, their lifestyle, etc, etc. The modern world loves celebrities. There's more money in disasters like Hannah Montana and Taylor Swift (her live vocals are what Mr. Cowell would call "pitchy") who have marginal talent, but can be worth a mint when properly groomed and advertised. No doubt, Ms. Cyrus' music probably involves very clever songwriters, excellent studio musicians, top-tier recording studios and equipment, vast amounts of time and the best talent spent on post-production and mixing. From a production perspective, Top 40 is almost certainly the top of the art, though I suspect some noteworthy experiments are happening outside the top 40. Sometimes they're elevating a great artist to the next level, sometimes they're spending a lot of money polishing turds into diamonds, because marketable turd-diamonds like the Jonas Brothers are very profitable.

    In the world of nearly-free online music, I contend that the cost of music is not money, but attention. From that perspective, it is cheap to listen to the music that is on the radio, in movies, on TV, and talked about amongst your friends. It is expensive to discover music that you haven't heard elsewhere because you're going to have to sift through a lot of unpopular crap music to find the unpopular, non-crap music. To be "cheaper", a musician must be findable with less effort from listeners, but how do they do that? It takes a) marketing $$ or b) luck.

    Summed up, like McDonalds, Top 40 is convenient. I personally prefer paying a bit more to go to a mom & pop restaurant with good Greek, Thai, Mediterranean, or Mexican food. They use better ingredients, and offer a broader variety of flavors, but I'm going to eat a lot of mediocre food along the way to finding the places I like. McDonald's ingredients are barely food, but they put in a lot of post-production and advertising to tell me I'll like it. Their product and the restaurant experience also happen to be pretty consistent no matter where I am. This makes them very popular - it doesn't mean they're the best food, but it does mean they're a predictable, convenient experience, and THAT is what they're selling. That, in my opinion, is what Top 40 music sells - a pretty good, well marketed package of music that suits a variety of palates with an image and associated products that make the industry more money. It is a better PRODUCT, but that does not make it better MUSIC, and I think that's where the music-snob debate comes in. And yes, for the most part, focusing on making music as an art rather than becoming a marketable music product will probably make you broke or at least relatively unpopular.
  • pimpfresh
    I think there is a toxic anti-free market belief that is becoming popular nowadays: That consumers are not able to make the best decisions for themselves, and that they are being hoodwinked by nefarious corporations into consistently buying inferior, unsafe, and unhealthy products. The anti-corporate forces claim that slick marketing campaigns and branding convince the idiot masses that what they consume is better than it really is, despite the fact that the consumer can actually eat the food, or use the product and make their own judgements. Mcdonald's is the #1 target of such criticisms, but no successful business is immune. I don't really want to tackle the admittedly difficult task of defending Mcdonald's food, but I do want to make a point about the anti-corporate "whistle-blowers." See, it's not the critics who are getting the wool pulled over their eyes, they are way too smart for that....they can make their own judgements. It's everyone else who is getting deceived. They're the ones who need someone to protect them, or educate them about the bad products they are they are getting sold.

    I totally agree that the music industry (and any artist really) is selling a full product, not just music. I tried to keep my argument simple in my original piece, but I think we have both proven that the market for products is both complex and diverse. Where we differ is that I believe the music industry is also truly COMPETITIVE.

    For starters, I disagree that it is expensive to find new music.....portals like last.fm, spotify, pandora, and lala, make it extremely easy. They generate and play new artists automatically, at no initial cost, based on your specific tastes. Secondly, I believe that like other careers where talent + hard work determine success (like basketball, writing, and management), the top artists are at the top for a reason. They have beaten out the millions of other artists to get the opportunity to be backed by the power of a label.

    I made the point that record labels sift through all shit that's out there to find the most promising acts, and I don't think it has been refuted. The artists that you talk about (swift, cyrus, jonas brothers) were not concocted in some lab and programmed to please audiences. Before becoming stars, they all demonstrated a capability to have mass appeal, and showed the rare ability to stay focused and sane doing the work required of a celebrity artist. For every Taylor Swift, there are 1000's of pretty teenage girls who sing and play guitar (and have overzealous parents with $ in their eyes) that do not become stars.

    It is easy to look at Taylor Swift and assume a lot from her image. Most people don't realize that at age 11, she convinced her parents to take her to nashville to distribute her demo tape around to labels, getting rejected from every single one. At 12 she started playing guitar and writing her own songs, playing open mics and traveling to nashville every chance she could get. Her family moved to Nashville to support her music career when she was just 14. At 15, she rejected a development deal with RCA records, because they would not allow her to record her own songs. She is obviously now signed, and as hard as it is to believe, she writes her own songs. (and actually a staff songwriter for Sony/ATV publishing house). This girl is nineteen years old and has driven herself to achieve what millions of people have tried and failed at for their entire lives. I don't care if she is "pitchy," she deserves every bit of fame she has.

    Likewise, Miley Cyrus was not pushed or prodded to pursue acting at such a young age. Certainly, having a famous father opened some doors for her, but none of her other siblings, and millions of priviledged kids around the world, have achieved the same status as her. Her persistence, drive, and innate talent are what make her a complete product. The same goes for the Jonas Brothers and any of these other supposedly "manufactured" artists. They've got something that millions of others don't.

    I will concede that good music alone does not make you a top artist, and that their are other factors. But those factors are still based around the talent of the artist! Elvis was a great example of this principle. We would have never heard "Blue Suede Shoes" or "Heartbreak Hotel" had the original artists been the only performers. When the right artist records the right song, the result is a product that is worthy of exposure. It does not make Elvis any less deserving of his fame because he did not write his own material.

    From your response I sense some "player-hating from the sidelines." These artists couldn't be talented, because they are young and are being packaged by opportunistic labels. Again, the masses are being hood-winked into an inferior product that is being shoved down their throats. They aren't capable of finding other music or making good musical judgements like you are. I believe this arrogance is the primary motivation behind the criticism of popular music.
blog comments powered by Disqus