Future of music

[Old P Bass Guy]

Agreed. There are plenty of music celebrities out there. Most of them I'm not familiar with, and I don't know their music. But that doesn't mean they aren't celebrities.

I've learned that culture moves on even if we don't. Pop music (and the business) is never going to return to what it once was, no matter how much we protest.

That's what Johann Sebastian Bach said! Motzart said "your crazy"!

 

[IamBF]

I try for some subtle humor and where does it get me?

Sorry, I get it now. Subtle humor usually flies well over my head.

 

[Nevada Pete]

Agreed. There are plenty of music celebrities out there. Most of them I'm not familiar with, and I don't know their music. But that doesn't mean they aren't celebrities.

I've learned that culture moves on even if we don't. Pop music (and the business) is never going to return to what it once was, no matter how much we protest.

So many aspects to this, and yes, your probably right. But consider this. There was a time when most media conglomerates (for reasons I cannot discuss) did not own more than three to seven media outlets such as a radio station, a television station or a newspaper. That has steadily degraded until now, we have giant media conglomerates that own literally hundreds upon hundreds of radio outlets, for example. Under such circumstances, the decision of what goes into rotation (on all the stations in the group) is solely up to corporate headquarters and there is no incentive to air new material for fear the listener will just move to another radio station on the way home from work. For this reason (along with the twisted phenomenon of music streaming) there is presently no incentive to produce, release and promote new musical material of any magnitude. And that is basically why what's left of the former music industry (which isn't much) is dying. It's because no one is feeding it. None of this is necessarily embedded in stone. After all, weed is on its way to becoming legal in all 50 states, and is already legal throughout the entirety of Canada. Who would have ever thunk it? That's all I'm gonna say.

 

[jamro217]

The future of music and the future of the music industry are on two separate paths. The future of music is going to depend on the artistry and imagination of those creating it. That's never changed. The music industry, on the other hand, is a marketplace where artists are used as a commodity to augment the wealth of business investors. Music will always flourish despite the means by which it is distributed. Radio, tape, CDs, LPs, streaming... all have had their popularity. The real problem remains bringing the best music to the most people. The best music is not always the most financially successful. Therein lies the problem. The relationship between the music industry and the availability of great music to people is that of a host and parasite rather than a symbiotic one.

 

[knumbskull]

more use of AI in composition and performance
increasing use of mobile device technology in production and performance
more micro-genres in various areas
the continuation of recycling / rediscovery of old music by young people
probably more format-based shifts in taste - I predict a minidisk revival at some point!
increase in browser-based virtual instruments

oh and at some point people will stop banging on about the ****ing 60s

 

[ctmullins]

oh and at some point people will stop banging on about the ****ing 60s

I dunno mate - I thought there was some amazing music that came out of the 1860s...

 

[DJ Bebop]

So many aspects to this, and yes, your probably right. But consider this. There was a time when most media conglomerates (for reasons I cannot discuss) did not own more than three to seven media outlets such as a radio station, a television station or a newspaper. That has steadily degraded until now, we have giant media conglomerates that own literally hundreds upon hundreds of radio outlets, for example. Under such circumstances, the decision of what goes into rotation (on all the stations in the group) is solely up to corporate headquarters and there is no incentive to air new material for fear the listener will just move to another radio station on the way home from work. For this reason (along with the twisted phenomenon of music streaming) there is presently no incentive to produce, release and promote new musical material of any magnitude. And that is basically why what's left of the former music industry (which isn't much) is dying. It's because no one is feeding it. None of this is necessarily embedded in stone. After all, weed is on its way to becoming legal in all 50 states, and is already legal throughout the entirety of Canada. Who would have ever thunk it? That's all I'm gonna say.

The future of music and the future of the music industry are on two separate paths. The future of music is going to depend on the artistry and imagination of those creating it. That's never changed. The music industry, on the other hand, is a marketplace where artists are used as a commodity to augment the wealth of business investors. Music will always flourish despite the means by which it is distributed. Radio, tape, CDs, LPs, streaming... all have had their popularity. The real problem remains bringing the best music to the most people. The best music is not always the most financially successful. Therein lies the problem. The relationship between the music industry and the availability of great music to people is that of a host and parasite rather than a symbiotic one.

Here you go, THIS:

Did you say you want some more?
Well, here's some more...

 

[NOVAX]

Talking about music is like dancing about architecture

-FZ

 

[MVE]

The future of music and the future of the music industry are on two separate paths. The future of music is going to depend on the artistry and imagination of those creating it. That's never changed. The music industry, on the other hand, is a marketplace where artists are used as a commodity to augment the wealth of business investors. Music will always flourish despite the means by which it is distributed. Radio, tape, CDs, LPs, streaming... all have had their popularity. The real problem remains bringing the best music to the most people. The best music is not always the most financially successful. Therein lies the problem. The relationship between the music industry and the availability of great music to people is that of a host and parasite rather than a symbiotic one.

Oh, but it could be argued that the "great music" is already available to people and the people are choosing to listen to what whatever #%#% they are listening to.

The "Music Industry" is simply trying to sell advertising and make their money based on whatever will reach the most ears.

If Serkin's performance of Beethoven's Sonatas suddenly got as many hits as Beyonce, the "Music Industry" would try to push and sell Beethoven just as hard as they do Queen B.

 

[jamro217]

Oh, but it could be argued that the "great music" is already available to people and the people are choosing to listen to what whatever #%#% they are listening to.

The "Music Industry" is simply trying to sell advertising and make their money based on whatever will reach the most ears.

If Serkin's performance of Beethoven's Sonatas suddenly got as many hits as Beyonce, the "Music Industry" would try to push and sell Beethoven just as hard as they do Queen B.

Exactly. The music industry would just as soon push the soundtrack of elephants mating if it sold enough copies. That doesn't make the sound of nature great music, though, does it? The only thing that matters is the bottom line. Creativity and imagination can be replaced by atonal garbage if the price is right. Great music is still available, but you have to search for it.

 

[Nevada Pete]

The future of music and the future of the music industry are on two separate paths. The future of music is going to depend on the artistry and imagination of those creating it. That's never changed. The music industry, on the other hand, is a marketplace where artists are used as a commodity to augment the wealth of business investors. Music will always flourish despite the means by which it is distributed. Radio, tape, CDs, LPs, streaming... all have had their popularity. The real problem remains bringing the best music to the most people. The best music is not always the most financially successful. Therein lies the problem. The relationship between the music industry and the availability of great music to people is that of a host and parasite rather than a symbiotic one.

If the preferences of the public at large are not going to determine what the "best" music is, i.e., what music is going to become popular and widely disseminated, how then do you propose to differentiate this "best" music you speak of from the inferior music so that the "best music" can be brought to the "most people"? There has never been a time when music has not been bought and sold in some kind of market place or exchange of value. If society doesn't value something enough to arrange things so people can be paid to produce it, how then is something like that going to continue to flourish?

If we separate the music itself form the music industry, that is, if we separate music from the exchange of value such as publishing sheet music like the great composers of classical music did, or separate music from being recorded and sold like we used to do not too long ago, I suppose we could all hang out on the porch or in our back yards (if we have a porch or a back yard) and listen to the family pickers sing, strum guitars, play fiddles and pick mandolin's. Or, something to that effect. There would no doubt be a lot of great music to be heard. But only by a few people at a time. If that's what flourishing is, then yes, music would indeed flourish under such conditions. How much of that music would actually be recorded and disseminated is open to question.

One could certainly say that the recording artists I was employed by or our sound company was employed by did augment the wealth of certain business investors. It's also true that those same business investors / record companies who made it possible for the artists we worked with to be highly successful recording artists lost their tail feathers on many of the acts they put their money in. That's why it's called a business venture. Yes, there was considerable host / parasite activity, way too much as a matter of fact, but there are certain reasons for that I can't go into here but which could certainly be changed for the better. I can tell you this. The artists we provided sound for must have been making considerable jingle to be able to afford the fees we charged, and we always gave our clients more than they bargained for. So I don't think it's fair to generalize that "artists are used as a commodity to augment the wealth of business investors". Believe me, plenty of those artists made plenty of money themselves. Would it surprise you if I told you many of them spent it as fast as they made it?

 

[jamro217]

If the preferences of the public at large are not going to determine what the "best" music is, i.e., what music is going to become popular and widely disseminated, how then do you propose to differentiate this "best" music you speak of from the inferior music so that the "best music" can be brought to the "most people"? There has never been a time when music has not been bought and sold in some kind of market place or exchange of value. If society doesn't value something enough to arrange things so people can be paid to produce it, how then is something like that going to continue to flourish?

If we separate the music itself form the music industry, that is, if we separate music from the exchange of value such as publishing sheet music like the great composers of classical music did, or separate music from being recorded and sold like we used to do not too long ago, I suppose we could all hang out on the porch or in our back yards (if we have a porch or a back yard) and listen to the family pickers sing, strum guitars, play fiddles and pick mandolin's. Or, something to that effect. There would no doubt be a lot of great music to be heard. But only by a few people at a time. If that's what flourishing is, then yes, music would indeed flourish under such conditions. How much of that music would actually be recorded and disseminated is open to question.

One could certainly say that the recording artists I was employed by or our sound company was employed by did augment the wealth of certain business investors. It's also true that those same business investors / record companies who made it possible for the artists we worked with to be highly successful recording artists lost their tail feathers on many of the acts they put their money in. That's why it's called a business venture. Yes, there was considerable host / parasite activity, way too much as a matter of fact, but there are certain reasons for that I can't go into here but which could certainly be changed for the better. I can tell you this. The artists we provided sound for must have been making considerable jingle to be able to afford the fees we charged, and we always gave our clients more than they bargained for. So I don't think it's fair to generalize that "artists are used as a commodity to augment the wealth of business investors". Believe me, plenty of those artists made plenty of money themselves. Would it surprise you if I told you many of them spent it as fast as they made it?

A valid point. Just cynical, I guess. After being shafted repeatedly my opinion of the music business reflects that.

 

[ctmullins]

If the preferences of the public at large are not going to determine what the "best" music is, i.e., what music is going to become popular and widely disseminated, ... (snip) ...

Never confuse excellence with popularity. Many people do this, not realizing that, by definition, what is popular is necessarily mediocre.

 

[Nevada Pete]

A valid point. Just cynical, I guess. After being shafted repeatedly my opinion of the music business reflects that.

No, your right. The music business is a snake pit. I just wanted to state the other side of the coin, to balance the equation.

There are certain consent decrees that apply to royalties I can't really discuss on TB that are part of the problem, and certain other legal matters I also can't discuss because they would require acts of congress to fix before a truly equitable situation can be established. I don't see that happening any time soon. But, you never know, I guess.

The 'porchfest' thread exemplifies what you were saying and demonstrates that there is still tremendous grass roots interest in music. Maybe something like that can the the future.

Porchfest! 9/22/19, Ithaca, NY

 

[Nevada Pete]

Never confuse excellence with popularity. Many people do this, not realizing that, by definition, what is popular is necessarily mediocre.

Tell that to Carlos Santana. A group I was in opened several shows for him back in the day when he was the Santana Blues Band. Nothing mediocre there. I could cite countless additional examples. Brahms, Beethoven and Mozart immediately come to mind.

I agree, of course, that quite a bit of what is popular today is indeed mediocre, to be generous. We probably agree on that point more than we disagree. I do think, however, that to say what is popular is necessarily mediocre constitutes a gross generalization, and as such, just isn't true.

 

[ctmullins]

Mathematically/linguistically it's true. The definition of mediocre is "that which appeals to the masses" "falling in between two extremes or boundaries". If we accept that the distribution of taste and discernment is a normal (bell-curve) distribution (which is an assumption on my part) then there is a relatively small portion of people at the left who have lousy taste, a relatively small portion of people on the right who have exquisite taste, and everybody else falls in between.

 

[mmon77]

The definition of mediocre is "that which appeals to the masses".

That's the first time I've ever heard it defined that way. A quick look at online dictionaries brings the definition I've always known "of only moderate quality; not very good."

 

[ctmullins]

That's the first time I've ever heard it defined that way. A quick look at online dictionaries brings the definition I've always known "of only moderate quality; not very good."

You're right, I typed that in a hurry. It really just means "neither poor nor excellent; falling in between two extremes or boundaries".

 

[Nevada Pete]

Mathematically/linguistically it's true. The definition of mediocre is "that which appeals to the masses" "falling in between two extremes or boundaries". If we accept that the distribution of taste and discernment is a normal (bell-curve) distribution (which is an assumption on my part) then there is a relatively small portion of people at the left who have lousy taste, a relatively small portion of people on the right who have exquisite taste, and everybody else falls in between.

May I say I think we're going to get in trouble attempting to employ objective measures such as bell curves to a subjective subject, i.e. taste in music. For what's being suggested to be true about the bell curve being able to illuminate the nominal distribution of taste in music, that would imply and in fact require criteria transcendent of the people themselves whose taste in music is being judged in order to define just exactly what constitutes excellent taste, average taste, poor taste, etc., in the first place. Then, and only then could the bell curve be tested to see if it indeed applies to people's taste in music, per se, and conclusions be drawn from that, if any. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're putting the cart before the horse as far as bell curves are concerned. There is no criteria I am aware of that we could apply to a bell curve so as to enable the bell curve to be employed to illuminate something like the nominal distribution of taste in music, because we don't know what taste in music is, to begin with.

I think we can therefore more easily and properly just go with popular opinion over a sufficient period of time to null out the influence of mere fad or fetish, i.e., we can simply employ the test of time to decide what a masterpiece is, for example, including a musical masterpiece. This begs the question, how does one know what "good" music is, and what it ain't? Perhaps we can refer here to Louis Armstrong, who famously stated, "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know".

Invalid Link Removed

Then there is the example of music / literary / television critics, etc., who unabashedly pan artistic works based on their (self-proclaimed) good taste, only to see said works become wildly popular. Who is right? What does it mean to enjoy something?

 

[ctmullins]

May I say I think we're going to get in trouble attempting to employ objective measures such as bell curves to a subjective subject, i.e. taste in music. For what's being suggested to be true about the bell curve being able to illuminate the nominal distribution of taste in music, that would imply and in fact require criteria transcendent of the people themselves whose taste in music is being judged in order to define just exactly what constitutes excellent taste, average taste, poor taste, etc., in the first place. Then, and only then could the bell curve be tested to see if it indeed applies to people's taste in music, per se, and conclusions be drawn from that, if any. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're putting the cart before the horse as far as bell curves are concerned. There is no criteria I am aware of that we could apply to a bell curve so as to enable the bell curve to be employed to illuminate something like the nominal distribution of taste in music, because we don't know what taste in music is, to begin with.

I think we can therefore more easily and properly just go with popular opinion over a sufficient period of time to null out the influence of mere fad or fetish, i.e., we can simply employ the test of time to decide what a masterpiece is, for example, including a musical masterpiece. This begs the question, how does one know what "good" music is, and what it ain't? Perhaps we can refer here to Louis Armstrong, who famously stated, "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know".

Invalid Link Removed

Then there is the example of music / literary / television critics, etc., who unabashedly pan artistic works based on their (self-proclaimed) good taste, only to see said works become wildly popular. Who is right? What does it mean to enjoy something?

You're not wrong.

It occurred to me shortly after my posting that I was flirting with a slippery slope that would eventually see me landing in a mud puddle of subjectivity. While my mind likes to play with abstract concepts such as "the epitome of artistic expression", it becomes difficult to defend rationally, at least without ending up writing a novel about motorcycle maintenance.

I still stand by my basic premise, that "popular" is not a synonym for "excellent". But perhaps that's okay - who am I to tell Joe Normal that he isn't fully enjoying what he's listening to?