[wower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unlike the majors, indie labels are doing very well right now. Traditionally they have been feeders, i.e. an artist would start with an indie label, and when they "made" it big, they would switch to a major label. It's not clear if that evolution will remain. Once an artist gets traction, it makes much more sense for them to strike deals with iTunes or Amazon than with the now irrelevant RIAA labels....

This is a really good conversation to have and I think the above comments support my thesis. To put a finer point on my thoughts; I guess I don't see the internet solely as a mode of distribution, which I think is how most people see the internet, but rather for discovery. It connnects people with diverse musical tastes with each other - sometimes radical music tastes. The markets will be smaller but theoricaly people will be happier with the quality of the music. This is why I see an erosion not only of major labels but also of super-star bands. Instead we will live in a world with a lot more music and I believe it's just natural for the cream to rise to the top. It's really hard to predict whether artists will want international recognition as there main goal. I don't want to go out on a limb and say it won't be because things like that are just too hard to define in absolutes, hence my hestiantion at defining what "making it" is, and props to the board for not getting dragged down into semantics.

Just to draw a parallel with the publishing industry, Amazon has been a great help to lesser known artists. Because Amazon's overhead is so low, they can afford to stock a book if it sells a minimun of one a year.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is a really good conversation to have and I think the above comments support my thesis. To put a finer point on my thoughts; I guess I don't see the internet solely as a mode of distribution, which I think is how most people see the internet, but rather for discovery. It connnects people with diverse musical tastes with each other - sometimes radical music tastes. The markets will be smaller but theoricaly people will be happier with the quality of the music. This is why I see an erosion not only of major labels but also of super-star bands. Instead we will live in a world with a lot more music and I believe it's just natural for the cream to rise to the top. It's really hard to predict whether artists will want international recognition as there main goal. I don't want to go out on a limb and say it won't be because things like that are just too hard to define in absolutes, hence my hestiantion at defining what "making it" is, and props to the board for not getting dragged down into semantics. Just to draw a parallel with the publishing industry, Amazon has been a great help to lesser known artists. Because Amazon's overhead is so low, they can afford to stock a book if it sells a minimun of one a year.

Your reasoning is sound, and much more optimistic than mine. But just to play devil's advocate for a moment: Does this mean there will never be another "voice of a generation" sort of band?

No more Beatles? Radiohead? Think of the huge social impact that certain great bands have had. If the marketplace evolves into a large number of smaller conversations, won't we have lost something?

Think also about the impact that a Jimi Hendrix had on other musicians, never mind the public at large. After his brief few years in the spotlight, the electric guitar was simply a different instrument. In the absence of a broad-based, truly national (or international) platform, will that be possible?

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

i still miss that station, though it's possible to hear some of their old djs on other stations. it's not quite the same as when allison steele, the night bird, would introduce all kinds of new and wonderful albums and play them in their entirety. Alison Steele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveDerek /img/forum/go_quote.gif i still miss that station, though it's possible to hear some of their old djs on other stations. it's not quite the same as when allison steele, the night bird, would introduce all kinds of new and wonderful albums and play them in their entirety. Alison Steele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She was great; do you remember her "space trip" sets? They always included "Standing On The Moon" by Lothar and the Hand People and John Klemmer's "Constant Throb," along with all sorts of other wierdness. As I type this, I can hardly believe I actually heard this stuff on a commercial radio station, but I remember it clearly.

It's impossible for me to overstate the importance of that station in my development as a listener. When I was in high school in the mid-70s, they were actually playing The Ramones, Television, Patti Smith, and so many others who were completely ignored by the more mainstream stations. And the night Cannonball Adderly died, whoever was on the air played a tribute set to him...first time I ever heard "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy." Can you imagine the crapstorm that would come down on a rock DJ who pulled a stunt like that in 2008?

I occasionally tune in to Vin Scelsa's show on WFUV. I live in a low-rise building in the middle of Manhattan, unfortunately, so their signal is very tough for me to pull in. I should probably just shell out for a better tuner. Come to think of it, maybe I should just get out of this yuppie-infested, souless corpse of a city.

 

[wower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your reasoning is sound, and much more optimistic than mine. But just to play devil's advocate for a moment: Does this mean there will never be another "voice of a generation" sort of band?

Well now that is a really interesting question. Oddly enough I spoted the ommission in the other post but kept it out for reasons of length. But since you asked...

I actually think of super-star bands two ways under this model, and this is completely hypothetical so lets have some fun (and not flame me): the part I initially ignored was rituals role in society. There is a body of knowledge I must ignore to keep the post a decent length but basically rituals today deal with pop-culture. Shows and bands we can all dissent ad nauseum, its the complexity of the ritual that's important. This is the reason for the existence of Star Trek conventions and Anime-con and a huge facebook group devoted to Lost where people discuss every detail. Though we have left stone tools behind, we still need to feel a part of something and no doubt some will latch on to a band to feel connected to a greater whole. Also driving the creation of super-bands (sorry I can't really think of a better term at the moment) under this model is that some bands will honestly deserve the recognition. The cream rising to the top, so to speak. Say what you want about the path of history, the Beatles were a great band.

Addressing your point about trends: Trends will still exist and the reason is simple enough. Everything will be connected and thus the possiblity exists for mass movements.

In regrards to the social-sciences I border nihilism. Predicting where societies go is just too hard but plans still have to be made. I wouldn't bet money on my own conjectures and would never suggest the complete extinction of mega-bands either. What we can see from the evidence is just plain irrational behaviour from the major labels. They want to stay the middlemen in a system that has already moved beyond them. No only technologically, but culturally, if one wants to look into writings about the digtial nature of the "remix culture". It's a battle for the heart of creativity. We live in interesting times.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif [T]he part I initially ignored was rituals role in society...basically rituals today deal with pop-culture. Shows and bands we can all dissent ad nauseum, its the complexity of the ritual that's important. This is the reason for the existence of Star Trek conventions and Anime-con and a huge facebook group devoted to Lost where people discuss every detail. Though we have left stone tools behind, we still need to feel a part of something and no doubt some will latch on to a band to feel connected to a greater whole.

That's an interesting argument, and one which goes some way toward explaining (to me at least) the popularity of a Britney Spears. Can't sing at all. Moves about as well as a clumsy pole-dancer in a small-town strip club. Yet she has sold tens of millions of records and her concert tours are, literally, money pumps. I have been mystified by the answers I get from young women (say late teens to mid-20s) when I ask them why they liike her. These fans often admit without hesitation that she can't sing, she can't dance, and her material is the lowest sort of bubblegum.

So why do they like her? The invariable answer: "She's a great entertainer." This always leaves me shaking my head. What exactly is entertaining about a bad singer/dancer who lip-syncs numbingly stupid material?

If I understand what you are saying, these people are essentially entertaining themselves by participating in a ritual. The ritual, as you define it, involves showing up at the concert, buying the t-shirt, and scoping out the other kids to see what they are wearing. What's going on at the front of the arena is literally irrelevant.

"Artists" like Spears are essentially marketing putty in the hands of their handlers. And that plays directly to the aims of the cookie salesmen referenced in my OP. I'm afraid that the long tail will mean that any sort of music -- as music, not marketing -- will be compeletly shut out of the mainstream, precisely because it draws too much attention to itself, and not enough to the cookies, or sneakers, or whatever being sold.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also driving the creation of super-bands (sorry I can't really think of a better term at the moment) under this model is that some bands will honestly deserve the recognition. The cream rising to the top, so to speak. Say what you want about the path of history, the Beatles were a great band.

They sure were. But they had access to the mainstream via the media and a marketing machine willing to some extent to push them on the basis of their music. The vision of the future that I have stuck in my brain right now does not include such access for the likes of the Beatles or Jimi Hendrix or Public Enemy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif Addressing your point about trends: Trends will still exist and the reason is simple enough. Everything will be connected and thus the possiblity exists for mass movements.

The long tail, by definition, posits a large number of separate interest groups, all listening to what they like. I don't see how that model could allow enough overlap among different groups to give an artist any sort of widespread recognition. The only way for an act to achieve broad-based success would be to deal with the gatekeepers - to become marketing tools, in effect. Can you see Radiohead doing that? And if they did, would they still be Radiohead?

I just don't see how a "voice of a generation" could emerge from that.
Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a battle for the heart of creativity. We live in interesting times.

We sure do.

P.S. Sorry for the long post. I'm obviously thinking out loud as I struggle to find some cause for optimism...

 

[wower]

Okay, I'll reply to this once more tonight. A conversation about what a future without major labels is too interesting to give up!

You picked up an insightful omission on my part. I'm describing a model that any rational person would conclude does not leave room for - using your words - "bands of a generation." Lots of small markets, never really over lapping or sharing. Then I go and contradict myself saying that super-bands or what have you will not disappear. To elaborate, my conclusion is based on my understanding of history; trends have always existed and a model - wisely - should not deny that basic fact. Again, if we were having this conversation over beer, every second word out of my mouth would be that we just don't know much about predicting where societies go. I've written essays on the topic and I just don't think it can be done (which leads to a whole other set of conclusions that is tangental to this topic). In that case, when one has to conjucture, one's free to use anything, and here I deffer to the power of history, from which is can clearly be drawn that trends will always come and go under a wide variety of conditions. And furthermore super-bands will arise through mechanisms I have already mentioned, like ritualism or actually being talented.

I think the use of the concept of "gatekeepers" could be correct, and is certainly correct in a limited sense. All evidence I can offer from this point only blurs the waters: Adding your points, keep in mind there is a school of thought that believes such structures are in place to distract the population from that which is important (enviroment, war, etc). Furthermore, it can argued such structures exist to increase consumption to artifical levels, that perhaps such high levels of global exposure and marketing do not represent a natural equalibrium thus, in fact, smaller local decentralized markets represent reality. I don't really know where I come down on this type of theory because the kind of evidence needed just doesn't exist. I have as many questions as the next person. I know I have glossed over large areas of study and I apologize; it would be too long otherwise. I doubt I have given you muvh hope for future of music and for that I also apologize.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know I have glossed over large areas of study and I apologize; it would be too long otherwise.

This has been an edifying discussion; I appreciate your thoughts!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif I doubt I have given you that much hope about the future of music and for that I also apologize.

You've given me a lot of food for thought, which is what I come to this forum looking for. It's a pleasure to have an exchange of ideas with someone who can argue a point skillfully, but also remain open to the ideas of others. Thanks for that.

I haven't lost all optimism. I've always thought that the Beatles had the impact that they did, at least in part, because they were completely unexpected. They demolished much of the conventional wisdom about pop music, and, for that matter, about marketing. It's very possible that the next phenomenon of that scale will be so different from our current models that we will, once again, fail to see it coming.

Many people of my generation have spent decades sitting around and waiting for the "new Beatles," the "new Dylan," or the new whatever. But artists like this have such a huge impact because no one expects them or is prepared for them.

I don't believe there will be a new Beatles or Dylan. But I live in hope that someone else will come from left field and change the world in a completely new way. I cling to that idea despite the dismal state of things as I write this!

 

[wower]

No no no. The pleasure is all mine.

Normally on internet forums, no matter how lofty the conversation, things always get bogged down in semantics, which really matters little to the discussion at hand. I am happy to report not once have we argued about the meanings of words. Where differences exists, we admit them, or define them where possible. That's really all I can ask of civil discourse.

Edit: are you up early or still up on the east coast?

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif No no no. The pleasure is all mine. Normally on internet forums, no matter how lofty the conversation, things always get bogged down in semantics, which really matters little to the discussion at hand. I am happy to report not once have we argued about the meanings of words. Where differences exists, we admit them, or define them where possible. That's really all I can ask of civil discourse. Edit: are you up early or still up on the east coast?

Still awake, I'm afraid. I've always had problems with insomnia, and lately I've been basically unable to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. So I'm just going to tough it out today and then collapse this evening. I suspect I'll be less and less rational as the houirs go by...but I have a pretty light day scheduled so it shouldn't be too bad.

 

[clarke68]

Great discussion. The best article I've read about the current/future state of the music industry was written by David Byrne for Wired magazine. The main point is that a system is emerging that supports several different paths to success for different types of artists.

While some aspects of a musicians' career are easier/cheaper now then ever (recording/distributing music) other parts are still very difficult (actually selling that music/making a living/etc.). Success in this area has always required a mix of hard work, talent, timing, and luck...I don't think technology can do anything to help or hinder that.

There have always been musicians that have transcended the music industry system (no matter how convoluted) and there always will be. Look at this couple that won the Oscar for "Best Song in a Movie" last night...the film (Once) was shot in 17 days on the streets of Dublin for 130,000 euro, today the soundtrack is the #1 best-selling album on Amazon.com.

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Great discussion. The best article I've read about the current/future state of the music industry was written by David Byrne for Wired magazine. The main point is that a system is emerging that supports several different paths to success for different types of artists.

Great article. Also excellent is the interview he did with Thom Yorke in the same issue. David Byrne is amazing; he's basically been there, done that. I love the fact that he refuses to participate in a Talking Heads reunion. I think he has too much respect for his own accomplishments to simply cash in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif While some aspects of a musicians' career are easier/cheaper now then ever (recording/distributing music) other parts are still very difficult (actually selling that music/making a living/etc.). Success in this area has always required a mix of hard work, talent, timing, and luck...I don't think technology can do anything to help or hinder that.

Steve Allen, The talk show host and professional mediocrity, used to foam at the mouth about how the electric guitar had supposedly destroyed music by making it possible for anyone to play. What he didn't realize, of course, is that the instrument opened up entire new vistas for truly talented musicians. Sure, you can train a house plant to bang out a few chords, but your ficus tree is never gonna play like Fripp or Hendrix, I guarantee it.

Technology is the same way. Anyone can learn to loop a sample, rap or sing (badly) over it, and then press the results onto a professional-looking CD, complete with slick artwork. Not everyone (to put it mildly) can take the same tools and produce Fear of a Black Planet or O.K. Computer.


Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif There have always been musicians that have transcended the music industry system (no matter how convoluted) and there always will be. Look at this couple that won the Oscar for "Best Song in a Movie" last night...the film (Once) was shot in 17 days on the streets of Dublin for 130,000 euro, today the soundtrack is the #1 best-selling album on Amazon.com.

It's great to see that happening, but I think you're missing one aspect: marketing. It's an indy film, yes, but it was heavily promoted to key audiences. NPR ran a lot of promos for it, and there were additional marketing tools brought into play. This costs money. Lots and lots of money. Most indy film-makers or musicians could never dream of that kind of promotion, and they will therefor remain obscure.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrBenway /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's great to see that happening, but I think you're missing one aspect: marketing. It's an indy film, yes, but it was heavily promoted to key audiences. NPR ran a lot of promos for it, and there were additional marketing tools brought into play. This costs money. Lots and lots of money. Most indy film-makers or musicians could never dream of that kind of promotion, and they will therefor remain obscure.

Obviously this movie has been promoted, that's the "luck & timing" part. The movie wasn't made (and probably wasn't promoted, initially) to win awards or cash in on any "Irish street musician romantic drama" scene...it was an artistic statement, pure and simple. It caught someone's eye (at, I presume, a film festival somewhere) and one thing led to another.

You're right, there are hundreds of brilliant films, bands, etc. that are equally that will never get (or even hope for) that kind of promotion, but more because they never got the "big break".

 

[DrBenway]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clarke68 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Obviously this movie has been promoted, that's the "luck & timing" part. The movie wasn't made (and probably wasn't promoted, initially) to win awards or cash in on any "Irish street musician romantic drama" scene...it was an artistic statement, pure and simple. It caught someone's eye (at, I presume, a film festival somewhere) and one thing led to another. You're right, there are hundreds of brilliant films, bands, etc. that are equally that will never get (or even hope for) that kind of promotion, but more because they never got the "big break".

This theme has been echoing through several threads I've been monitoring or contributing to. I think the one thing we can agree on is that things are in a state of flux right now...the old model is clearly on the way out, but it's not yet clear what it will be replaced by.

I was originally seduced by the concept of "the long tail," but I find it ultimately unsatisfying. It kills me that Eva Cassidy's name is not a household word. Even as a relatively underground phenom, she has managed to sell millions of records since her tragically early death. But I struggle with the idea that a manufactured mediocrity like Justin Timberlake, for example, is known far and wide, while most people have never heard of Eva. Something makes me crave art that transcends all limits and moves the entire world, strictly on its merits (eg The Beatles, Bob Marley). The current system buries talent, and I don't yet see anything on the horizon that will materially change that. We need less Britney and more Alice Smith. How do we get there?

 

[clarke68]

I can certainly relate to your frustration...I'm a jazz guy, and the number of artists deserving wider recognition in jazz is mind-boggling.

Still, I'm not sure I buy that talent is being buried today any more than it has been any other era...the same decade that produced the Beatles & Hendrix also produced the Monkees and Sonny & Cher. Not to say the proportions are always equal, but there has always been (and will always be) some dreck and some genius in every generation. Part of what makes artists like Bob Marley great is that they are rare.

Taste is always a factor, as well. As much as I'd like to see William Parker recordings in every CD collection in the world, a lot of people just don't respond to improvised music. You mention Justin Timberlake...probably anything you could say about him I used to say about Michael Jackson back in the '80s. I was just sure his music wouldn't stand the test of time. When I listen to his stuff now, tho, I can actually hear what a great songwriter he is, and the stuff I used to listen to (mostly SoCal punk), well, where are they now?

As for going forward, a system that brings more music to more people is probably best, as it would bring more great music along with the one hit wonders. The thing we need to fight is the commoditization of music. There are growing numbers of people who think that paying for music is stupid, because it can be downloaded for free so easily. This attitude is creating a system where artists may have no recourse but shack up with Proctor & Gamble or Kraft to make a living as musicians.