[DrBenway]

CNET reports on a Forrester analyst's claim that in the future, music will have value only as a marketing tool. James McQuivey, a Forrester analyst and former Brown University professor, says,

"Artists who used to pretend that their platinum album success was really about their "art" will no longer have that luxurious pretense because labels won't sign them unless they agree to a barrage of sponsorship opportunities...There will eventually come a day when Chips Ahoy will contend with the Keebler Elves over who can be the official cookie of the Taylor Swift world tour."


According to CNET, "McQuivey argues that when it comes to artists, the labels should focus more broadly on a musician's career, including merchandise and concerts, as well as recordings. He said it's the artists, not the CDs that are the music industry's true product."

Anyone else feel like vomiting?

 

[goldenratiophi]

Holy crap!

as in.... holy crap I could go for some Oreos right now!

 

[Sean.Perrin]

What's new? I have always only supported the artists who were sponsored by great cookies?

 

[goldenratiophi]

Really though, Chips Ahoy was so two years ago. Animal Crackers are 2008.

 

[Uncle Erik]

They already sign extensive marketing agreements.

However, this assumes that all new music will come from the labels exclusively. Most music will be released independently, and the labels have already lost their influence. The labels will probably keep skimming off the very top and merchandising the hell out of them.

 

[dgbiker1]

Yea.... CNET and Forrester, the Fox News of the tech world.

 

[ken36]

why not?

 

[FalconP]

It has been like that in Hong Kong for years. America is so backward.

 

[elrod-tom]

Sounds like one of those people who says outrageous things because it causes a reaction.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FalconP /img/forum/go_quote.gif It has been like that in Hong Kong for years. America is so backward.

That depends on what you mean by backward. I believe that music has intrinsic value; it should not be reduced to the status of a marketing jingle. Do you consider that backward?

If the sponsor calls the tune, the artist is a mere employee. If the boss thinks the music won't move product (HIS product, not the artist's product), the music doesn't see the light of day. That means nothing controversial, nothing political, and nothing that doesn't serve its intended purpose: selling soap.

Do you think Kurt Cobain's music would ever have seen the light of day under those circumstances? John Lennon's? Public Enemy's? I somehow doubt it.

Of course, musicians have always been mere employees to the corporate music industry, but this vision of the future is NOT an improvement.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif They already sign extensive marketing agreements. However, this assumes that all new music will come from the labels exclusively. Most music will be released independently, and the labels have already lost their influence. The labels will probably keep skimming off the very top and merchandising the hell out of them.

Agreed. But it also means that the mass media will never again be available to artists like Dylan, or Hendrix, or NWA (Sheesh. Can you imagine a bunch of marketing pros at Proctor and Gamble sitting around in a wood-panelled meeting room auditioning Straight Outta Compton?)

The fact that the entire country could be exposed to great music, via the mass media, was one of the things that made poplular music such a force in this country in the '60s and '70s. The indy model of distribution guarantees that artists with any sort of unique musical vision will be ghetto-ized within specific, limited realms.

An Otis Redding will never be able to cross over to a wider audience. A Bob Dylan will stay within the confines of college campuses and be limited to a very specific socio-economic group.

The long tail is a cute theory, but it has some very ugly implications.

 

[dgbiker1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sounds like one of those people who says outrageous things because it causes a reaction.

You've just encapsulated the sole function of Forrester Research. Nothing they say has any credibility or purpose outside of serving as sources for useless CNET articles.
Just an example of Forrester's magnificent psychic powers: Around 2000 they predicted IT departments would disappear within 3 years... I still see plenty in 2008.

 

[vcoheda]

there's plenty of good music out there and plenty if not more garbarge. nothing new.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcoheda /img/forum/go_quote.gif there's plenty of good music out there and plenty if not more garbarge. nothing new.

Certainly. But if you are old enough to remember FM radio in the mid-70s, you know that media can be much, much better than it currently is. Allowing unchecked commercial interests to screw things up even further is hardly the solution.

There was a time when you could flip on the radio (WNEW-FM where I grew up), and hear great new music. Freeform stations did not have playlists and left it to DJs to decide what they were going to play or not play.

Imagine that.

I just can't understand why people don't complain about the current sorry state of affairs.

Oh well. If McDonalds is food, then I guess "Piece of Me" is music. Go ahead -- supersize me. You won't mind if I stay close to the bathroom?

 

[tylernol]

Music piracy is a great thing. Sucks for the artists, but you know what, this **** has to end.

Popular music is made, released and made popular, then shoved into ads for Ford trucks, which is a neuro-association to the popular music --> automatically making it so one is subconsciously into said Ford trucks. It's not rocket science.

Steal music.

Tyler