Buttmunker

Let's forget for a moment the dream of owning a Richie Rich-style mansion with a Lazy River that goes around the 100,000 sq foot house and all the wealth of the Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney. Put that to the side for now - everyone would love that kind of wealth, but it is a rare thing. Even a monster album like Frampton Comes Alive is a rarity. Possible, but not everybody can have that. You know - there are not only starving actors out there, after all.

So, my question to you - if you had to choose:

Would you settle for:

a) One GUARANTEED Hit Single
or
b) Nothing promised. Just taking your chances like everyone else for what may be behind Door #2 (The Lady, or the Tiger-type senario)

I remember when Hanging By A Moment hit it big for Lifehouse - the lead singer, Jason Wade, was actually cursing the success of the song because he didn't want his band to be known as a One-Hit Wonder. But you know what? I think a hit song is a great thing, and most striving bands would probably love a hit song that will be played for years and years on Top 40 stations.

Anyway, what are your views?

gmal2003

Not a musician but Ill take the hit song. Afterall, you will be in good shape financially if you spend wisely. If you roll the dice, keep struggling, make no money and want to take care of yourself and a family, youd probably have to quit or greatly reduce the time you spend on making music. At least with one really big hit you can probably do what you love for the rest of your life (make music) without having to get a 9-5. Plus,you didnt say you could never get another hit, or hits and become a great band.

Buttmunker

Then I'd like to make an amendment: no more hits, no more success, other than the one promised hit.

devilpants

Having that one hit is a double-edged sword: You can live off that hit from royalties for the rest of your life, but you'll be cursed to play that song forever even if you're bored to death with it. Keith Richards is still playing "Satisfaction" forty years later, and that's a very repetitive riff (a good one, but still...).

Filmmaker

I'm slightly confused as to the question--do you mean to ask if you would take one guaranteed hit single if you knew you would never have any chart success or substantial fan base thereafter? Or go for Door #2 because it might lead to a U2-like career of longevity and long-term musical relevance? If I have the intention of the poll right, then, as foolish as part of me knows the choice to be, I'll go with Door #2. Meaning outranks money.

PopcornTreeCt

Guaranteed Hit. Without a doubt.

jjamesc

Granted I don't know a lot about how the music industry works, but from what I've picked up from various things I've read, a single radio hit couldn't be lucrative for the long term unless:

A) the hit song in question was a REALLY huge hit and continued to be a popular enough to stay in radio rotation and maybe make an appearance on a compilation or soundtrack or something

B) the song was written/produced by me/my band (it's my understanding that artists don't get royalties when a song is played on the radio, but the songwriter does and maybe the producer, but I'm not sure about the producer)

C) I had a REALLY good royalty rate from the record company, which I probably wouldn't have as a new artist

Assuming that these are true (and I could be dead wrong), I'd probably take my chances with nothing promised.