Arguments over whether or not a song is good because it charted is ridiculous. These days (and going way back) you don't even need to write the song, it's handed to you. Do you think Britney, Christina, N'Sync, etc. wrote all of their hits? Hell no! This has been something that has been at the core of music, especially since the beginning of R&R. In the 60s you had teams like Porter; Hayes, Holland; Dozier; Holland, Goffin; King, Howard; Blakely, etc.. In the 70s you had Gamble; Huff, or Chapman; Chinn, and it was their job to just write songs behind the scenes. Some bands along the way had good songwriters within the group: Roy Wood from the Move, Pete Townsend, Jagger; Richard, and of course, Lennon; McCartney. But to say that a band that doesn't chart because no one in the group could write a good chartable song is ridiculous. Kaliedoscope are a prime example of this, several singles and three LPs, not one chart success, but some of the best songs ever recorded. Dan's right, the amount of records that were coming out in the 60s and even today, it's hard to find chart success. Several songs fell under circumstances like the Roullettes "Long Cigarette" could not get promotion because the advertising of cigarettes had just been pulled off of television prior to it's release. "Addicted Man" by the Game banned for drug lyrics even though it was an anti drug song. In the UK how can the Sloar Flares compete with Westlife. In the states it's all about Britney and the Backstreet Boys, what are the chances of the Insomniacs reaching those heights. So whether a song charts or not, means nothing. The 60s had some great singles that charted and some even better one that didn't. Same can be said for all decades, charts don't make a song good. Sean ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
