Embracing the changes in the music world

[lbbc]

I am 59 and the BL of my band. We dropped the drummer, sold all PA and light gear...bought a Bose PA, no amps, just run from pedalboard, became more musically diverse (everything from Bill Haley to Bruno Mars... including modern country). Playing country clubs, restaurants, wineries, breweries and private events. We are busier than ever and making decent money.

 

[bass12]

Musicianship in general has gotten better. So many virtuoso musicians out there but it's become a 'look at me, look what I can do' world. Not many tight cohesive units like in the past. Too many copycat bands. I like what Bruno Mars brings to the table. Need more of that. Good music and entertainment as well. Most of the other big names have all gone stale. They offer nothing new or exciting. Not to mention the current state of sound reinforcement. Loud, loud, loud! Why? What happened to balanced mixing and bringing the volume down? I'll go see Snarky Puppy at a small venue than to go see a big name act at a large venue. Not enjoyable anymore. And how about radio? I thought payola was illegal and dead!? They play the same drivel day after day. Nothing off the beaten path! I end up listening to old school music off a thumb rive in my car, where I listen to music the most. New music doesn't interest me. Unless it's Bruno.

There doesn't have to be payola when everything is owned and operated by the same people. Streamlining and adherence to mass distributed playlists has killed commercial radio. The average person does not go digging for music with any kind of depth to it and so the average person is now less likely to develop more refined musical tastes. It's terribly sad. Unfortunately I think a lot of what is touched on in this piece is accurate:

Invalid Link Removed

 

[JakobT]

I don’t know - in my neck of the woods there are more bands than ever, and there is more live music played than ever before. It might not all be rock’n roll, but what of that? Music is music.

 

[Honch]

Today youngster can make music on their cell phones and a decent microphone. It's THE SONG as the end result that is most important. Kids don't want to be like their parents. When the establishment and the folks that is in power likes rock, then it's not anti-establishemt, and rebellious any more, not the least. Johnny Lydon lives in Hollywood now, and was neighbor to Keith Emerson. One that he used to loathe in the 70s and everything they stood for. Techno, rave, acid, undergroud was for a while the youths true rebellion, against whatever came before. But I agree, the metal and hard rock is like jazz today, it's like "really old" people who listen and still loves this.

I would like to be born at these times. Because it's so easy to make mulitracking and you can make stellar music production in your bedroom for scraps money compared to the end of 70s and 80s. I think too, that rock and pop is a very young, vital, and - actually - sexual thing. I e it suits younger people better. It's a "young" thing. I DO have problems when post 60ers strutting around on stage (yeah, the Stones, are you reading this?). I think youngsters think when they're seeing not only dads music but granddads music that hey .... that's for REALLY old folks. I think the genres of singer/songwriter, folk, country, blues lasts a while longer up with that generation, and I even think that you've got better stories to tell in those songs. You can do Jazz too, up in the ages but I think rock'n'roll as it is now, and established genre for those in the powers that be has definitely lost its rebellious and provocative stance no matter how much Rammstein you try to turn.

NEW things, music, are always invented by young people. Period.

People said in the 80s that the guitar was dead, in the wake of all these new romantic and synth pop bands, but it took a break only. Peoples mind are saturated with a certain "timbre" and "style" that defines rock. Loudness and especially aggresiveness. To me, rock'n'roll is the type of thing were you have testosterone and agressiveness. My definition of rock'n'roll is a delicate one, and maybe a far fetched comparison but here we go:

if you have a toddler, any below 1 year old kid, and you put the kid in a) front of a drumkit b) acoustic piano c) or anything that makes a musical sound by just touching something with your fingers and hands, and you show it to the kid, or the kids surprise when he first hit the keys of piano and detects its sound by gut reaction... guess what? ...the SECOND try, the SECOND hit is done with all the power the toddle can muster, and even if it ain't loud, he/she tries by gut reaction just to check how loud it can get. No risk that he damages the piano, but anyway. On drums, even if you tell them "play carefully" the SECOND hit is as loud as possible and you see the smile and drool WHILE they may be holding their ears...the drool and smile. The bare essence of rock'n'roll is right there! I am not kidding!

Bands: You have to sound like any equipment are on the verge of exploding or break into pieces any time. All of the time while playing. Even singing. You should play and hit your instruments exactly within the point of destroying it. Same with amps on distortion. Most people think you'll destroy the amp just because it sounds like it when it's distorted. Same with drums, you can't destroy the drum sticks, but you know how hard you hit just before they'll break into splinters. Same with vocals, you yell, scream and you turn out hoarse... essence of rock'n'roll. No wonder the snowflake generation dislikes that. Least common denominator...

- -- - - -

I do like the way music is distributed today. Through internet, with kept quality, if you'd like. I haven't ever been able to check out new music and new artists from all around the world, if it wasn't for iTunes, Myspace, even Kazaa, Napster, Spotify. Obscure artists that would never seen the light of day otherwise. Obscure music styles even. And they share the same space as Madonna, and Lady Gaga. It's not one bloating over the other. The space is my monitor screen, and they share the same percentage of advertising space. Which means that the days of music journalism definitely is over, and we don't have to rely on a couple of persons taste, mostly people who can't tell the difference between a welding unit and a saxophone, let alone hear it. They can crawl back into the rectum they got s*at out from.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

Your input here is essential!!!!!



I started playing music in the 70s. Every decade both music and the industry have changed. This past decade I think it's changed the most. I'm not sure all the ways it has, but some of that change can be depressing - so I thought I'd start a thread where we might collectively be able to identify what's different, what sucks, what's great, and how we might be able to embrace it all.

I'll start with what's bugging me most. While I don't believe R&R is yet dead, it definitely moved to Florida. And its on life support. I work in a HS, and I'm gigging more than I ever have in my life to big crowds of people in their 20s and 30s. I don't see anybody anymore that's into R&R, wants to play guitar or bass, or is even the least bit interested in what the band is doing when we're performing. And we're good. There are no Led Zeppelin or Van Halens any more, no STP, no Greenday. There are no more rockstars. Nothing to inspire kids to pick up a guitar. All the best clubs in NYC are gone and forgotten. Carvin is closing (or closed). GC is rumored to be struggling. OK, I'm bumming myself out...

The good news is it's prime time to reinvent music. The Beatles did what they did in the 60s - somebody (maybe you or me) has their work cut out for them come the 20s! I always wondered what it would be like being the first person to become a pop star in his 70s or 80s . I've still got some time to work at that . We have access since the new millennium to take things entirely into our own hands. We don't need record companies, producers, recording studios, huge bank accounts, or even musicians anymore to produce, market and sell our own music. People under 20 may take that for granted, but I sure don't. With fewer and fewer people strapping on guitars, we also (those of us who stay in the game) have more and more opportunity. At 56 yrs old, I just started making the most money I ever have in my entire life with music.

Bottom line, there is lots for us to keep our heads up about. I'd love to get a discussion going. Dump yer garbage and complaints, and tell us what's great about it all too.

I'm waiting for the current generation to have an epiphany. It will go something like this.

The artist will talk about the novel and innovative way they decided to record their current album.

They will talk about playing with other musicians who sat down, wrote a song and then went to the studio to flesh it out while all of the members played their own instruments.

The artist will also explain that they actually played as a unit or a band rather than the artist overdubbing and playing all the parts.

The artist will expect much praise and fawning for discovering this new way of recording.

Well, I must hike my pants up to my nipples and go yell at the squirrels on my lawn. GD kids! I remember when the bass noise was made with a washtub and we didn't need no stinkin' amplification.

 

[grillman]

I live in a country where Rock n Roll never really was a thing and is now dead and gone (South Korea).

Last week we released our first album and we were featured on a quality Youtube channel (666MrDoom).

We've received love from Greece, Brazil, Ukraine, the US, etc. It also translated into sales on Bandcamp and other platforms. Such and incredible feeling.

THAT for me is the beauty of the modern era.
There are a lot of people hungry for rock music out there, we just have to look at the bigger pond.


Btw we have no label, no manager, we are self produced and do all of our products DIY. We broke even within a week.

 

[darwin-bass]

There are no Led Zeppelin or Van Halens any more, no STP, no Greenday. There are no more rockstars.

Thank Goodness!

 

[Engle]

I understand your point, but for many people, a pop band like ID, and many like it, are about as far from rock as you can get. I do like ID, don't get me wrong, just not everyone's idea of a rock band.

Fair enough. At least they actually play instruments!

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

you must not live in l.a. my parents bought house for $32,300 in 1970, the house next door same size in good condition just sold for $1,600,000

Yes, California has their very own real estate bubble. Enjoy it!

 

[Engle]

I am 59 and the BL of my band. We dropped the drummer, sold all PA and light gear...bought a Bose PA, no amps, just run from pedalboard, became more musically diverse (everything from Bill Haley to Bruno Mars... including modern country). Playing country clubs, restaurants, wineries, breweries and private events. We are busier than ever and making decent money.

I get how it’s easier, but there’s magic playing with a good drummer. I would miss that.

 

[Kelly robinson]

It seems people are debating several issues here - " Is rock dead " - " - " where is live music headed " and " what happens in your particular area " . Joe's thread is interesting and worth examining / commenting on for sure but I wonder if an honest poll of TB members/lurkers wouldn't be a good idea to get a better real world assessment of the state of today's scene . Such questions as " how many gigs do you do per month / year ? " - " How many live music shows do you attend per month / year ? " - " How many live music venues are left in your area ? " etc . I am sure many of you can think of more and better questions to ask so we can all get a much more accurate and detailed view of the state of live music today and potentially , it's future . I have expanded beyond R and R to include all live music as I believe that is the main issue really . My apologies to Joe for this hijack of sorts - Kelly

 

[buldog5151bass]

When things change so people can make money writing and recording music, it will swing up again. It amazes me how many people I speak with who don't understand why they should have to pay for music.

 

[RichardW]

We have access since the new millennium to take things entirely into our own hands. We don't need record companies, producers, recording studios, huge bank accounts, or even musicians anymore to produce, market and sell our own music.

This is true, but actually makes it harder for bands to break through, in my opinion. There's no question record companies took advantage of--actually, "exploited" is a better word--many artists in the early years of rock n roll. But for all that, if a band made it through the process of A&R, producers, etc, there was a decent chance they were pretty good and at least had a chance to catch on with a wider audience. At least the record company might try to recoup its investment with support for touring, marketing, radio play, etc.

With the ability of ANYONE to produce music and distribute it, as we have today, it just makes the volume overwhelming. It's like trying to pick out the best snowflake in a blizzard. I don't think a band like the Beatles could even get an audience today--at least not like they did in the 60s. There are too many niches, too many distribution channels, and too much music that is complete rubbish all competing for ears.

Yes, it is easier and cheaper to produce and distribute music today, but I think it's pretty clear that has not raised the overall level of quality and in many ways it's made it harder for really good bands to get the support they need.

 

[Mannyinnewyork]

This is true, but actually makes it harder for bands to break through, in my opinion. There's no question record companies took advantage of--actually, "exploited" is a better word--many artists in the early years of rock n roll. But for all that, if a band made it through the process of A&R, producers, etc, there was a decent chance they were pretty good and at least had a chance to catch on with a wider audience. At least the record company might try to recoup its investment with support for touring, marketing, radio play, etc.

With the ability of ANYONE to produce music and distribute it, as we have today, it just makes the volume overwhelming. It's like trying to pick out the best snowflake in a blizzard. I don't think a band like the Beatles could even get an audience today--at least not like they did in the 60s. There are too many niches, too many distribution channels, and too much music that is complete rubbish all competing for ears.

Yes, it is easier and cheaper to produce and distribute music today, but I think it's pretty clear that has not raised the overall level of quality and in many ways it's made it harder for really good bands to get the support they need.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I also don’t care that my perception of current music is skewed by my age and environmental influences - I like what I like. Things change all the time. Great music (in my opinion) might not sound great to someone else.

If you want to work and get gigs, I think you’d better play what your target audience wants you to play - be it oldies, classic rock or current rock/pop.

I know I’m not overly fond of what I hear on those rare occasions that I turn on the radio, but again, who cares (the answer is “ no one”). I also believe that there are probably some people out there making music that I would really enjoy - but filtering through a sea of garbage to find that golden nugget is not what my life is about. It’s a bit sad but that’s just the way it is.

Just play what you want , enjoy your love of music and let everything else slide.

 

[Felken]

The negative aspect of your post is something that is happening. It's here, it's now and it's real.

Your positive argument is a maybe. Maybe music will change, maybe we could reinvent music. It's a concept, an idea.

The pop music industry has created a system where songs have a shelf life of 2-3 weeks. A month if it's a mega hit. The hooks are catchy, the lyrics are simplistic and repetitive and the songs have no complexity or creativity. You just need to be able to dance to it.

Short lifespans for songs means people get bored of it much quicker, hence more demand, hence more money.

I found it curious how people had a different "favourite" song nearly every week.

The changes in music have not been good. It's a system designed for the few masterminds creating these pop icons, not for musicians and not for talent. That's why I simply cannot sympathise with pop music and cannot appreciate it.

I'm 17, I love bands like Rush and Iron maiden and Dream Theater, I picked up bass guitar. I'm doing what I can to preserve merit in talent when it comes to music. But I'm not seeing the current musical landscape with much optimism.

 

[Felken]

I think Rock’s not completely dead. Maybe you’re not noticing the rock that’s out there. My daughter went to see Imagine Dragons last week so I just asked her about it. They play rock with bass, drums, guitar, keys, vocals. It was full house at Rogers Arena in Vancouver.

Imagine Dragons is NOT rock. It's devout pop music.

 

[bass12]

When things change so people can make money writing and recording music, it will swing up again. It amazes me how many people I speak with who don't understand why they should have to pay for music.

Most people, unfortunately, have absolutely no idea how much time and money are required to produce most professional level recordings. The notions most people (and this includes a lot of musicians) seem to have regarding what goes into recording music are mind boggling. Just because it has become easier to record at home does not mean that making an even halfway professional sounding record is easy or cheap. And the justifications people will use for not paying what amounts to less than the cost of a bad cup of coffee for a song are staggering. I have very little hope for the future...

 

[Bourbongangster]

This came up on instagram a couple days ago and it rang true. No one is making guitar based music anymore.

Answer to that problem IMO = Boss OC-2.

 

[Kevin1960]

Today youngster can make music on their cell phones and a decent microphone. It's THE SONG as the end result that is most important. Kids don't want to be like their parents. When the establishment and the folks that is in power likes rock, then it's not anti-establishemt, and rebellious any more, not the least. Johnny Lydon lives in Hollywood now, and was neighbor to Keith Emerson. One that he used to loathe in the 70s and everything they stood for. Techno, rave, acid, undergroud was for a while the youths true rebellion, against whatever came before. But I agree, the metal and hard rock is like jazz today, it's like "really old" people who listen and still loves this.

View attachment 2783944

I would like to be born at these times. Because it's so easy to make mulitracking and you can make stellar music production in your bedroom for scraps money compared to the end of 70s and 80s. I think too, that rock and pop is a very young, vital, and - actually - sexual thing. I e it suits younger people better. It's a "young" thing. I DO have problems when post 60ers strutting around on stage (yeah, the Stones, are you reading this?). I think youngsters think when they're seeing not only dads music but granddads music that hey .... that's for REALLY old folks. I think the genres of singer/songwriter, folk, country, blues lasts a while longer up with that generation, and I even think that you've got better stories to tell in those songs. You can do Jazz too, up in the ages but I think rock'n'roll as it is now, and established genre for those in the powers that be has definitely lost its rebellious and provocative stance no matter how much Rammstein you try to turn.

NEW things, music, are always invented by young people. Period.

People said in the 80s that the guitar was dead, in the wake of all these new romantic and synth pop bands, but it took a break only. Peoples mind are saturated with a certain "timbre" and "style" that defines rock. Loudness and especially aggresiveness. To me, rock'n'roll is the type of thing were you have testosterone and agressiveness. My definition of rock'n'roll is a delicate one, and maybe a far fetched comparison but here we go:

if you have a toddler, any below 1 year old kid, and you put the kid in a) front of a drumkit b) acoustic piano c) or anything that makes a musical sound by just touching something with your fingers and hands, and you show it to the kid, or the kids surprise when he first hit the keys of piano and detects its sound by gut reaction... guess what? ...the SECOND try, the SECOND hit is done with all the power the toddle can muster, and even if it ain't loud, he/she tries by gut reaction just to check how loud it can get. No risk that he damages the piano, but anyway. On drums, even if you tell them "play carefully" the SECOND hit is as loud as possible and you see the smile and drool WHILE they may be holding their ears...the drool and smile. The bare essence of rock'n'roll is right there! I am not kidding!

Bands: You have to sound like any equipment are on the verge of exploding or break into pieces any time. All of the time while playing. Even singing. You should play and hit your instruments exactly within the point of destroying it. Same with amps on distortion. Most people think you'll destroy the amp just because it sounds like it when it's distorted. Same with drums, you can't destroy the drum sticks, but you know how hard you hit just before they'll break into splinters. Same with vocals, you yell, scream and you turn out hoarse... essence of rock'n'roll. No wonder the snowflake generation dislikes that. Least common denominator...

- -- - - -

I do like the way music is distributed today. Through internet, with kept quality, if you'd like. I haven't ever been able to check out new music and new artists from all around the world, if it wasn't for iTunes, Myspace, even Kazaa, Napster, Spotify. Obscure artists that would never seen the light of day otherwise. Obscure music styles even. And they share the same space as Madonna, and Lady Gaga. It's not one bloating over the other. The space is my monitor screen, and they share the same percentage of advertising space. Which means that the days of music journalism definitely is over, and we don't have to rely on a couple of persons taste, mostly people who can't tell the difference between a welding unit and a saxophone, let alone hear it. They can crawl back into the rectum they got s*at out from.

Sorry friend, but I would have to disagree with much of what you say here.
Much of Rock and Roll is like what you state "Loud and Obnoxious" but you will find those that have been making the music were for the most part in their late 20's or thirty's before they became "discovered or more widely known" despite the audience being teenagers. Many groups out there worked hard to earn their place and didn't just tap out a rhythm track on their phone and call it a song. The guitar was dead in the 80's? I don't think Eddie Van Halen and many others got that memo. As far as the Stones or 60 pluses strutting on a stage, I think back then we had an opportunity to select music or the arts as a career choice and it was much easier to commit the time and resources to it. The recording industry was very different back then as well. Back then the encouragement from our parents and the generation before us was there. Public education had a robust funded music and arts program back in the 60's and 70's as I remember it. The quality of music on the internet is not better in my opinion. It is only more convenient. Until and unless younger people realize that live music and vinyl trumps the quality of the crap on their phones they will be happy with what they have. Human hearing is analog not digital BTW.

 

[Stranger Danger]

Is the local bar band rock scene not what it used to be? Yes that’s a fair assessment. But I also go to a lot of shows and see thousands of people there. As long as that continues then I reject the idea that “rock is dead”.