Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
A devastating response to the "free music" generation.
- Thread starter Benjamin Strange
- Start date
I'm not elitist at all and to think my earlier comments were is completely missing the point.
I enjoy a VERY wide range of music and I like to think that occasionally I make some good stuff myself, either at home or with my bands. But I'm not ever going to make another "Aja" - that level of musical attainment is forever beyond me. I'm not bothered by that at all, I've known it for years. What does bother me is that it's pretty soon going to be beyond anyone working that way.
It's not that Aja is better or worse than anything else. It's the fact that one type of opportunity for creating some great music for us all to enjoy (by putting massively talented musicians and tech guys with state of the art resources in a purpose-built environment and letting them do what they do until it is done) is becoming rarer and rarer because of economic and technological changes.
That does NOT mean there's no great music that is made in a different way. It only means that particular way of making great music and the results that follow when it happens are disappearing.
Nobody's stopping anyone making a bedroom masterpiece. Remember Brimful of Asha? Truly great music. But in a different way and for different reasons than Aja. That's all I'm saying.
I enjoy a VERY wide range of music and I like to think that occasionally I make some good stuff myself, either at home or with my bands. But I'm not ever going to make another "Aja" - that level of musical attainment is forever beyond me. I'm not bothered by that at all, I've known it for years. What does bother me is that it's pretty soon going to be beyond anyone working that way.
It's not that Aja is better or worse than anything else. It's the fact that one type of opportunity for creating some great music for us all to enjoy (by putting massively talented musicians and tech guys with state of the art resources in a purpose-built environment and letting them do what they do until it is done) is becoming rarer and rarer because of economic and technological changes.
That does NOT mean there's no great music that is made in a different way. It only means that particular way of making great music and the results that follow when it happens are disappearing.
Nobody's stopping anyone making a bedroom masterpiece. Remember Brimful of Asha? Truly great music. But in a different way and for different reasons than Aja. That's all I'm saying.
Remember for every Aja and Songs in the Key of life there are 1000 albums like Britney Spears or Massari or <cookie cutter Nashville artists goes here>. Budget or even expertise (of session players or technical assistance) in no way correlates with quality.
And I should point out those two albums are over 35 years old. Any current examples of budget/time/big studio albums that blow your mind?
Current technology means amazing artistic statements can be made without all of the above. Lots of crap can be made too, but give the 2012 version of Stevie Wonder less money and time and he'll still make a masterpiece.
The other concept that's out-dated is the idea of albums. We're headed to more singles oriented releases. Think pre-1965. Just the singles are digital now.
And I should point out those two albums are over 35 years old. Any current examples of budget/time/big studio albums that blow your mind?
Current technology means amazing artistic statements can be made without all of the above. Lots of crap can be made too, but give the 2012 version of Stevie Wonder less money and time and he'll still make a masterpiece.
The other concept that's out-dated is the idea of albums. We're headed to more singles oriented releases. Think pre-1965. Just the singles are digital now.
More it is becoming more segregated and specialized. We have gone from the community bandstand in the park to the family stereo to every individual with a private earpiece. We all now expect our narrowcast product and tend to downgrade that which is broadcast to the largest audience possible.NateS said:
I am getting old. But back when i was young, we made music that old people hated because it was weird or threating or just too damn noisy and it made them feel just how old they were. But I hate music now because it's mostly unbelievably dull. Dumb melodically, dumb harmonically, dumb rhythmically, dumb lyrically. Warmed over, rehashed, beat to death. So yeah, get the hell off my lawn and go make something new and great. Your generation is supposed to be making music that makes ours sound ridiculous and obsolete but that just ain't happening. As it stands now, your music is redundant, not ours, and that's pathetic.
These sound like the words of a man who hasn't listened to enough music. Turn off the radio and don't you dare think MTV represents all we have to offer.
By "our generation" do you mean that there should be people our age making great music or people of any age currently making great music?
Not listening to enought music? Face facts. Who were the headliners at Bonnaroo? Radiohead and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. These guys are in their 40's and 50's! I when I was in my teens and 20's I didn't want to listen to a bunch of old men doing their dad rock thing. That would have been like the Who headlining the first Lollapalooza. Or Elvis headling Woodstock. No self respecting music fan would have put up with that. You guys aren't pulling your weight and moving the culture forward.
there is another thread about that subject in band management. Very interesting the guy talk about band that did give their music for free on their website knowing people will share it anyway but ... they did sell limited edition with unique stuff that a fan would want and would pay for it, or they sell wierd stuff like a 10 000$ package that will let the person to sing on the recording or you pay x$ to have your name in the album in the "thank you" section etc. Or in the case of Nickleback ( yeah I know ) they encourage people to film the live show and put them on the website. So guess what ... people come to the show to film it.
The folks playing the big shows are the same folks playing on the radio. They make money but there's waaaay more than that out there. You want to know why you aren't seeing new stuff? Because record companies just want to make money. I can't really fault them for that but they aren't interested in new and different they're interested in money. You'd hear plenty of good stuff if those folks could get the promotion that they deserve.
As much power that's come into the musician's hands as of late, they still just cannot compete with the advertising power of a multi-million (billion?) dollar marketing machine. There's just no way. And most of the general population is gonna listen to what's pushed on them because it's REALLY pushed on them. Every once in a while though you'll see someone a little different make a big splash (most recently, I think that's Adele - not a fan myself though). It's no longer "Hey, this sounds good, let's give them a shot." You can try and place all the blame on us young folks if you want but it's bigger than that.
Blassebassist said:
Nah. Your parents probably compared your records to Sinatra and Crosby, and made the same observations.
You're seeing the past through rose coloured glasses. Every generation has good stuff and crap. early rock and roll is a lot of fun, but hardly highbrow. Right now it's Justin Bieber. In 1975 it was the Bay City Rollers (who later made a couple of standout albums but couldn't escape their past). Heck, go and listen to the non-single tracks on the Beatles early albums! There is some utter rubbish there.
Now go and look at someone like Imogen Heap who is using the web to create a whole new business model, and creating sounds that were not possible twenty years ago. Listen to what Norah Jones is doing basically in a home studio. Or Lilly Allen.
To most twenty year olds I will bet your favourite music is totally redundant.
Sadly I think I am one of the few people from my generation who still pays for all of their music.
Yup. You're looking in the wrong places if you're not finding new and interesting music. The mainstream is as bland as ever, but the flip side of the technological change discussed in this thread is that there's a million more musical projects and a million more distribution channels now than there were even 20 years ago.
"Good" is subjective but "new and interesting"? ... it's definitely there. (Just one example, we used to share this guy's practice space.)
The record companies are scared. Scared people play safe and stay away from the long tail. If you want novel and interesting, you have to go look. It isn't going to come to you on the radio any more.
And that brings me back to my original point. You guys aren't getting great music (which to my mind implies both quality and scale) because you aren't paying for it. They don't get promotion because promotion costs money, often more than the cost of recording the album. That's what record companies really do, they front the money so the music just doesn't get made, it gets a real shot at getting heard because, as I'm sure you know, musicians tend to be insecure nut jobs and the last thing they're good at is promoting themselves. So even if it's good, music that isn't getting heard isn't going to move the culture forward. So yeah, it's your fault. Pay for music, especially the good stuff so there's enough money for record companies can do their job and musicians can do theirs.
When you say "the" culture, have you considered that things are a lot more fragmented - due to the explosion of channels - than they used to be?
One of the biggest changes that has happened in the last decade or two is that there is no "the" culture any more, with all the good and bad that that entails. People are getting their news from blogs rather than newspapers, listeners can pick from ten thousand streams each dealing with one specific sub-sub-sub-genre of music, internet TV means that two people can go a year and never see one show in common ...
The only stuff I don't pay for is music from oversees because the prices are crazy to actually try and get my hands on ($25-50 depending) and even then I've bought a lot.
And again, you're completely off base. New and worthwhile is already there, it's just not being promoted. How do you get promoted to the degree of groups like Steely Dan and Stevie Wonder? You get on a major label. An indie musician typically cannot compete with the promo machine. It doesn't matter how much money they make, it'll be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what they'd need to get seen.
You're basically saying "If you all paid for more of your music these bands would be able to be seen" No. Just No. Not right now anyway. When was the last time you saw a really well known indie band/artist get a record deal? You don't because record companies already know who they want to sign. You see people hit the major label seen out of absolutely nowhere.
It doesn't matter how much money the band makes, what matters is how profitable they look. "New and interesting" is just not profitable in the eyes of the major labels. I'm not trying to lay all the blame on them but the stuff I want you to hear won't ever be on the radio or on MTV - won't ever be popular without their help. It's not up to us or the band/artist themselves. Unless you could get a million people to all support a single indie (non-major label) group's music, we just won't see them on a large show. And the likelihood of that happening without promotional power behind the group is basically zilch. Is it really that hard to get?
Great point. There's no longer one culture. There are thousands.
This is actually something that was revealed somewhat in 1991 when Soundscan started tracking record sales. Before 1991 you'd see a couple of bands dominate the charts for months. After 1991 albums would hold #1 for a few weeks at most and then new albums would take over. And there was way more variety in genres than people imagined. Big hip hop sales were revealed, even Pantera debuted at #1.
The internet has encouraged an increase in very specific cultures and communities (i.e.: genres and sub-genres).
Unfortunately this fragments album sales as well.
Musiclogic
Commercial User
- Aug 6, 2005
- 6,505
- 73
- 60
- Disclosures
- Owner/Builder: HJC Customs USA, The Cool Lute, C G O
General music sales numbers are available through R&R mag or online, professional musician numbers are available through Ascap and BMI
