Slashdot Mirror
The Way the Music Died
segfaultcoredump writes "Frontline just released a show entitled The Way the Music Died, an in-depth look at all that is wrong with the music industry. The show will be available for online viewing on May 29th. Their website includes the full text of all of the interviews done during the show, including a very interesting one with musical legend David Crosby, where he hits the reason the industry is having problems right on the head." Reader robl adds "This is a good sequel to the 2001 Frontline episode, The Merchants of Cool which showed how the music industry markets its wares to teenagers and how it hypes artists."
I was searching the page for quotes from people that I believe are the best ones to be asking for information. I don't see any artists on there that openly support free music. Why not? Those artists are the ones that you should be supporting... They are the ones that are comfortable enough with both themselves *and* their fanbase to believe that they can make it without having to worry about being backed solely by the money-grubbing conglomerates.
... The people who run record companies now wouldn't know a song if it flew up their nose and died." Crosby also argues that the quality of music has suffered because of corporate interference. "It doesn't matter that Britney Spears has nothing to say and is about as deep as a birdbath," he says.
David Crosby is a music legend known for his solo performances as well as his work with the Byrds, and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. In this interview, he recounts how the music industry has changed over his career. "When it all started, record companies -- and there were many of them, and this was a good thing -- were run by people who loved records," he says. "Now record companies are run by lawyers and accountants.
I can tell you the way the music died... It died when the musicians became the money-grubbing motherfuckers that most of them were told to become. They want to make millions of dollars and they have the conglomerates brainwash their fans into thinking that it is acceptable! Music is now a business, of course it isn't run by the people that care. Why should it? People that care don't worry as much about the money. They worry about what matters... Pleasing the people that enjoy music. Everytime you plunk your change down for iTunes, CDs, DVDs, whatever, remember that a portion of that goes not only to supporting multimedia conglomerates that control everything it also goes to supporting DRM, lawsuits against others, and lavish parties where people enjoy laughing at you for buying their shitty music.
Music that is controlled by the conglomerates is now not created by the musicians it's created by the conglomerates. They decide what's going to be a hit and what's not. Billy Joel and his "cut it down to 3:05" bit. Do you really want to listen to music that is price-fixed, controlled, and owned by people that don't give a fuck about anything except how much Grey Goose they can drink out of ornate ice sculptures while crying about how much money they are losing because they refuse to ship as many CDs as they used to?
Crosby's point that record company executives actually cultivate and take pride in their philistinism is not news, but refreshing to hear anyway.
One of the quick ways of spotting this is to compare a song that you enjoy to its live performance. It should sound better live, but if the artist is just a commercial pre-packed product then they will probably sound like shit. -- Very true quote though.
... if music be fruit of love, play on
I see two types of music industry, one marketing orientated type (MTV basically) that panders to people that don't actually like music. (they just like the imagery and style associated with thier particular flavour of pop, the 'Hip hop' guys like eminem, the 'punk' girls like pink etc).
The other type is that real music industry, where bands aren't marketed as a way of life. What is an Aphex Twin fan like? What kind of clothes should i wear if i like Amon Tobin or Sabres of paradise?
Seeing as I am firmly in the second group, I don't care very much what happens to the MTV industry. They never got any of my money, and they probably never will.
just my 2 centi-'S
I saw most of this show on TV last night. I found it interesting that they did NOT mention the Internet or P2P file sharing as a cause for poor music sales. Instead I think they nailed it when they said - More lax regulations on radio station ownership is to blame. Now that everything is Clearchannel, you can only play what they want. Artists used to get their big break by a local station playing their music. - Video is also to blame. You can't just sing any more, you have to look good too. They used Brittney Spears as a prime example--nice to look at but can't sing her way out of a paper bag.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
I agree with you on this, although not completely. I've taken to finding bands (Grateful Dead mainly) that allow for their music to be recorded. You can listen to the same songs from slightly different perspectives while still having other things be at the forefront of your thoughts. It's not as good as being there, but it's definitely better than listening to the same thing over and over.
It makes you wonder, why doesn't the industry decide to make things interesting and press CDs of all the different concerts? It would be slightly more expensive, but would garner a decent amount fo interest and sales I would imagine. And, it would deter file sharing because if you want song x from concert y it would be much harder to find if there are 30 concerts and you want the one you attended.
That's scary.
Finally a post where I can do some blatant self-promotion of a music site I've been working on. It's called cStream
http://www.cstream.com
Unlike most sites, we don't charge artists to post their music (i.e. like music.download.com, soundclick.com etc...) and we provide them with unlimited storage for their music. We don't believe in DRM, all our files are distributed as MP3s. After all DRM is not really effective if you can Buy. Rip. Burn MP3 from any music store with DRM (Buymusic, iTunes etc..). Thus DRM is a really weak level of protection for music.
We've only been open for a couple of months but already have a few hundred songs. We try to sell artists music and give them 50% of the revenue. Our problem is that because our music is independent music generally no one has heard it before. Because we only give away 30 seconds of the song in high quality our sales are fairly low.
We've been thinking about switching our model to providing full length lower quality copies of a song with the ability to purchase high quality versions of the song.
Canada's version of MTV, Much Music, at least started out as a more independently-flavoured enterprise: shows like The New Music would track musical trends at the grass roots and give alot of air time to genre-specific or non-major label signed bands.
They broadcast a concert with Neil Young in their studio a few years ago...they talked about this song "This Note's for You" (take off on This Bud's For You), then asked him how he felt about Bob Dylan licensing one of his songs to a Canadian bank. His response was so blunt I still remember it clearly.
(paraphrasing a bit)"Well, I thought it was pretty obvious. We lost that one. Like, the whole war. We're all commercials now. And I can't see a way to change it back."
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Yep. Most of the "artists" out there today owe more to their producers and marketing agents than to their talent. Oh, and their looks. Being blond with big knockers is a sure fire road to stardom.
I always find it interesting to watch the groups that perform on SNL. Most of them sound like losing entries for American Idol. The only exception I've seen so far was U2. Damn, there is some real talent there. And I say that even though I don't even like them much...
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
I think the biggest problem with the music industry comes down to this: they are charging WAY too much for a single album-length Compact Disc.
At US$18 per disc, no wonder why music sales are down--people can't afford them! It's also created the financial incentive to try to get around these high prices, hence the rise of P2P sites. This is a classic case of an economic cartel that is being undermined. Also, for just a little bit more money you can buy a DVD movie, many of which not only have the movie but also additional featurettes out of the wazoo. Think about it: you can get the Extended Edition of the first two Lord of the Rings movies for around US$28 to US$30 at most retailers; it has so much stuff on four DVD's it would take you weeks to browse it all.
If the RIAA would just allow their member companies to price their CD's at US$11.95 per album-length CD the incentive to pirate music would drop drastically.
An interesting site and one I'm sure that I will be visiting (and purchasing from) often.
As for the samples, 30 seconds are nice (60 are better) but one thing that has caused me to buy a TON of music is radio streams. Some sites have set up various genre-themed channels where they play the music that they sell. You get to hear the entire song, hear other music that you might not have thought of sampling, and all of the track info is carried with the stream.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
Personally, I don't purchase CDs anymore. You can flame me all you guys want, but I don't see the point in doing it anymore. I strictly download music from a ton of different sources and use that to listen to anything. My car has a built in computer that I use for music, movies, etc.. Granted, the quality may not be as good as an actual CD, but it's something that I can sacrifice. And even most times I can borrow and copy the CD from a friend.
Hmmm.
I look at the "popular" music today and can't help but think, don't any of these bands actually know how to play their instruments anymore? Where's the talent.
It is at this point that I recall Ringo Star and bands like The Monkeys. Perhaps it has always been this way.
But, then I remember the musical genius of bands like Yes, ELP, Rush, etc., and think to myself, where are bands like that today? I guess there are some, but you never hear them on the radio.
Look at what happened to movies. The golden age of Hollywood produced some of the greatest movies ever made, will real artistic content. Look at new releases today, it's mostly crap.
Same thing with music: jazz, blues, early rock. The US produced some great stuff. What's on the radio today? Total crap
Thank you MTV & ClearChannel.
(yes, there are still some decent indy (& even mainstream) movies & bands...)
there's no place like ~
The truth is that as long as the RIAA can make the fistfuls of money they will continue to do so because they are a business. As soon as that business model become unfeasible, for them, not us, they will switch and find alternatives. Even with the piracy and decline in music purchasing they are still raking it in. There are too many 12 yr olds with disposable income that simply must have that latest Britney, NSync, or Avril album and will get it.
I also liked his comment that VH1 and MTV have unwittingly made music more about look and feel then about music. Most of my music dates back to before the 90's, with some notable exceptions.
Sir, there is a dragon outside with an armful of armor. He's inquiring if we offer free refills.
Go and watch "Stop Making Sense" by Talking Heads. About half of the movie consists of David Byrne running around the stage.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
The patronage system ended becase it compensated far too few people. It was a catch-22 system where to get noticed you had to do things that gave you exposure. How did you get exposure? By having a patron that financed it. It is sort of like looking for a job where everyone says they only want someone with experience. Also, "patronage" was something doled out by nobles. The kind of censorship they could have was incredible. I believe Mozart himself got into trouble with that - writing an opera that was critical of something your patron held dear was just not done! But Mozart (from what I recall) did it and suffered because of it.
What the "record company" model did for artists was to provide a way to finance the patronage (promotion) without it being at the whim of a noble. The incredible success of one performer subsidized the ones that were not as successful. In some ways, it is similar to a patronage system, but without the nobility - just crass commercialism.
It's interesting because I've always concidered myself to be lucky for growing up when I did.
;)
Having been born in 1975, I began listening to the radio in the early eighties...solidified my hatred of the modern music industry right there. (The glam rock seriously offended me for some reason
I very quickly began listening exclusively to the music my parents listened to, Zeppelin, Cream, CSNY, Santana, all the good shit.
Once I got through all of the old stuff and began craving new music, I already knew not to bother turning to the radio as that would be useless.
So, I turned to the underground. College radio, sharing tapes with friends, or even better, older brothers of friends etc etc, and playing my own music.
I really think I have to thank the (commercial) music industry and commercial radio for forming my sensible view on music...I didn't have to be told that they suck, they showed me quite well themselves!
No Comment.
It's not just "a lot of posts" saying this. It's the musicians, too.
Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young! Any record company right now. [throat slashing noise] "Sorry, these guys are too weird, and that's too inflammatory, too political." That's the truth. We wouldn't get a contract.
In the '60s and '70s I'd go to the record store, and there would be the top 10 charts. Half a dozen of them, one for each radio station close enough some of the the punters could pick one up, and they were all different. Today, what have you got? MTV/VH1 and Clear Channel, across the whole USA. And unless you're in LA or Nashville, none of them are local. You know what's going on in New York, but you have no idea who's in your own town.
In the '60s or '70s, unless you were listening to a top-40 station you'd hear a lot more than the "charts", you'd hear local music, you'd hear stuff the DJ liked, if you didn't like the DJ you could change stations and get an actual different mix, instead of a different spot in the Clear Channel Song Cycle.
So you can't just look at what was on the *charts* in 1968 or 1975, because it wasn't like now when looking at the charts tells you basically what you're going to listen to.
They played lots of different stuff. Each DJ had his own tastes and you knew that if you tuned in in the evening you would get hard rock. Afternoons were mostly unheard-of new artists. At 3AM you never knew what to expect - it was a free-for-all! Mornings were... well, I never got up before noon, so I don't know.
Wednesday at noon was the "Coffeebreak Concert" where they would get a local musician or a visiting celebrity to visit the studio, talk, and sing a few songs. Live, with only studio mics. It was sort of like MTV Unplugged, only less pretentious. I remember Melanie saying how she couldn't understand why people liked her - she sang flat. Yep, she did, but it was an honest flat. And we liked her.A friend of mine was a record store manager. He did it because he loved music. His apartment was always filled with LPs - literally - mostly culls and demos - and he just kept getting more. You know how some people pigeonhole others according to what they wear or what kind of car they drive or who their friends are? Rusty remembered you according to your musical tastes. Every time you entered his apartment, you knew going in that you ~must~ leave with an armful of records. Not just any records, but ones that he personally selected for you, and although many of them sucked, they were at least in the ballpark of the kind of stuff you liked. The point is that Rusty ran a record store because he loved music. It was in his blood.
I think that it's as hard for teenagers today to relate to that era as it was for the 70's teenagers to relate to their parents' tales of growing up during the Depression or WW-II. Unless you were there and lived the zeitgeist it's not the same.David Crosby did hit the nail on the head - it used to be about the music, not about the money.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Music innovation is a two way street. The cultural process of making music has reached the point where the centralization of talent and distribution of recordings can no longer sustain musical culture.
In other words, if you love music, the time has come to start learning how to make it yourself. In the 20th century, the paridigm arose that people would listen to the radio to hear what was new. The best musicians would play on the radio to get known. People would buy musical recordings that they heard on the radio and musicians would copy the musical styles and add their own improvements. People would go to hear musicians play what they heard on radio and then a little bit more. As the bands improved and surpassed the radio performers, they would record, have their recordings played on the radio, and the cycle would begin again.
The various economic and technological developments covered in the PBS series have caused this model to fall apart.
The 21st century solution requires more input for the music community. If you love music, you need to learn to play an instrument and get involved in the music creation process. Not to the extent of the 20th century musicians, but more than the 20th century audience.
Start with music that you already like. Get a notation program that displays MIDI files in sheet music form and plays the notes through the sound card. It's not 'music', but that's not the point. The point is to learn about the music itself: the chords, the harmonies, the arrangements. Almost all popular songs from the past thirty years have MIDI files available on the web. It's an incredable resource, if you can use it.
Learn a little about written music. It's always the first program cut in public schools so there is a good possiblity that you have had no exposure to it in high school if you graduated within the past ten years. If you can learn C++, you can learn anything. Learning to read music is one path to independence from the RIAA, so it is worth the time and effort. Again the music notation programs like MIDISOFT studio v4.0 that play MIDI files are a big help.
Get instruments that match the ones used on your favorite recordings. Ebay is a great source. For example, you can now buy the same synthesizers used for 70s,80s, and 90s music at a tiny fraction of the original retail music store prices. Often you can buy a synthesizer or tone module (a synth without a keyboard that plays through the computer's MIDI port on the joystick connector) for $80, use it for several months, and resell it on Ebay for a different type for the same price that youo paid for it. You get a long term rental of a complicated musical instrument for the cost of shipping it to you from the previous owner. Sometimes you can get the instruments directly from the musicians who make the original pop hits and have been driven into bankruptcy after they pissed away their advance on SUVs, partys, and entourages.
You can also get schematics of many of the stomp box guitar effects on the web, including all those used to make the classical rock songs of the 60s and 70s. You can get files that explain note by note how to play the great guitar solos from that period as well. Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, Santana, ect... All the great classic rock songs have been documented and are on-line. It doesn't matter if you don't really like the original music, it matters that you are learning to be a musician and as such you are breaking the deep psycological bonds that tie you to RIAA product.
Then you can start creating your own music and start trading it on specialized sites (such as the Yahoo Groups dedicated to a particular instrument or band). You can collaborate with other people engaged in the same process and who are at the same point as you. If you're stuck you can get help from others.
All this is completely beneath the radar of the RIAA, but will go a long way to meet your basic human need for music without being a passive disgrunted endless consumer of RIAA product.
Anyway it is a real alternative to the RIAA.
I remember having tapes and LPs and they would just plain wear out: many not lasting more than a year or two. It was like tolet paper. When you wore out your tapes or LPs you were often forced to buy them again. I would try to copy them off of friends, when my tapes would get recked, but quality of copies even with high speed dubbing just was awful. I only have about 5% of the total cassets I have purchased now and I no longer have any LPs. With a computer or when you buy a CD there is no replacement problem. In an industry that was 40 billion dollars, I would not be suprised if 20% of that was people replacing "old" tapes that stretched or broke. It mirrored toilet paper, when you ran out you bought more. Digital Media has killed the record business. -Ron
The people who sell prints of Sunflowers or table mats with The Hay Wain on them are no different form the reocred labels. They sell an unchallenging mass product to people with a mild interest in maybe having something no one can object to. Publishers whi sell airport novels and TV novelisations are doing the same thing. Productions of Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals or yet another bloody LaBoheme are doing the same.
Yet there are still people writing books worth reading, still artists, still people putting on new plays etc. etc.
If the recorded music industry has reached the point where the people producing the latest Briteny-a-like or the latest yet-another-emperor-concerto can go off and do what they do best, then that is probably healthy.
If Crossby is so upset about being screwed by the record labels, why isn't he happy that the only people being screwed now are the talentless bimboes?
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Keep in mind that the general public is all apathy.
In that sense they don't question the schlock that pours down from MTV, from the 1 massive set of radio stations under clear channel. From a young age they are just fed this stuff, and told to buy something that they don't need, etc etc.
It reminds me of the matrix a little bit, the only way to free a mind is to take a friend out to see an indy show, play indy music around you. As a culture we need to wake up and tune out of this stuff, until we do we are slaves to it.
I have to agree. I remember when I was little my dad listened to contemporary music of the time like Johnny Cougar (not Mellencamp yet), Journey, and Dire Straits. I just recently had a daughter. I'm about 3 or 4 years younger than my dad was when my parents had me. I don't listen to contemporary music. Occasionaly there might be a good song that I like that's new, but half of those are cover songs.
I think it's sad that the music industry either can't or won't make music that appeals to my age group just so they can appeal to younger listeners who take soon-to-be-my-money (in the form of allowances, etc) and use that money to buy this stuff.
Another point I would make is that the concept of the album is dead. That is part of the greatness of bands like Zepplin and the Beatles. Now mainstream music seems to be centered around singles and an album worth of filler.
In the history of the world, singers have been poor. Crosby says that when he started, nobody was rich in the music business. Records got started in the 20s then depression and war and not until the 50s did they really start making money for people. So rich musicians, making money from something other than the actual performance is a new phenomenon. They benefited at the start. Then the money people moved in. The 90s benefited from a re-purchase for new tech. Well the wheel has turned. The tech is making the recording just an advertisement for the live show. Good bands "Greatful Dead" can make a good living off of touring. They encourage song swapping. The BIG 5 have painted themselves into a corner. Focus on a few profitable acts, suck the money out of them, you lose the other ones. There is a lot of good music being made right now. They do not get the big 5 and Clearchannel seal of approval. But the internet gives them more traction. The few independent stations out there give them hope. Plugs for Disturbed, AudioSlave, Saliva, Godsmack, Jet, Hoobastank, Limp Bizkit, Korn. Yes they are like the music from the 60s and 70s but they are good.
From the conclusion of 'The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis' "the financial incentive for creating recorded music are quite weak. Few of the artists who create one of the roughly 30,000 albums released each year in the US will make a living from their sales because only a few albums are ever profitable. In fact, only a small number of established acts recieve contracts with royalty rates ensuring financial suffieciency while the remaining artists must rely on other sources of income like touring or other jobs." Indies exist because the music is there to be listened to - it's a labour of love for all involved. Music production and distribution requires pretty massive sacrifice and compromise in one's life - even those who are able to eak a living out of their record label or musical offerings have given up a great deal in terms of financial stability and life choices, like having a family, or building a retirement fund. The majors aren't the only reason for this - not all music is of value to anyone but it's creator ( :>) but they are the reason that the selection of music on your radio is limited and sounds the same, and that the chain stores only sell their trite crap.
Music sales are ultimately driven by quality. The music "industry" is heading down the road of destruction if they think they can promote themselves out of the abyss.
I've recently started teaching my son to play the guitar. He's had 6 years of experience and lessons and still couldn't play a decent lead. After looking through his music books (all popular rock bands) I figured it out.
Train Song by Phish - 10 chords
Last train Home by The Lost Prophets - 7 chords
Would by Alice in Chains - 7 chords
Cold Hard Bitch by Jet - 7 chords
Strong Enough by Sheryl Crow - 6 chords
No wonder they sounded the same (and boring) to me. On top of that the rock bands were over compressing the signal, great sustain but no musical dynamics. It was all stomp box distortion.
I started off by teaching him a few decent songs (although we had to work on technique, he had never had to do a string bend, hammer on, or pull off).
Dust in the Wind by KANSAS - (to learn to play clean)
Desperado by The Eagles - (to learn to play with feeling)
Stairway to Heaven - 23 chords
Roundabout by YES, 40-43 chords (its how you play it)
Clap by YES - 56 chords, and fast tempo
When I was learning to play you'd be laughed at for playing chord progressions and calling them songs, now people play big bucks to hear what oughta be an improved lead.
"C" was right, but he didn't take it far enough. I see the major labels limping along as the smaller companies with TALENTED MUSICIANS like GOTEE keep making a killing off each record they release because IT'S WORTH HEARING!
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
Excellent point.
:)
Since they are your students, you have the opportunity to inform them of that. Maybe give a class on all of the wizardry that makes what they hear... so different from the reality.
I've got recordings of Metallica raw material... their own demos and scratch tracks. They aren't hard to find. (Stuff like that for other artists may be.) The difference between those and the final mastered studio recording is a fascinating contrast for those that have never done any recording.
If there hasn't been any innovation in music in 40 years, will someone please list for me their favorite rapper, turntablist/DJ, or electronica artist* from the 60s. While these may not be the music everyone listens to on the radio(except rap), they have started a 'genetic drift' in music. And we've already seen the drift in some genres: Country sounds a lot more like rock/pop than it used to, and modern rock sounds a lot more like rap... Listen to more than just plain vanilla pop rock (mmm.. pop rocks) and you will find plenty of changes happening...
Random recommendations - for those seeking a good rock webstream, I recommend radioio's eclectic and accoustic streams. And for those looking for a unique album and not just a collection of songs, check out the Flaming Lips Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.
(*Please refrain from nitpicking about these too much... I'm declaring my open assumption that what became modern electronic music starts with Kraftwerk.)
This talk about how the labels are 'risking' so much is pure bunk. If they aren't 99.9999% sure of recouping their costs *plus* a nice chunk, they won't sign you. Many artists who get signed end up *owing* the labels money, for production/promotion etc. If anyone wants an idea of how the labels really work, check out this paper written by someone on the inside:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
I'm a musician myself, and can attest to what Mr. Albini is saying, and that it's *not* just a diatribe by a 'disgruntled former employee' or an isolated/rare situation. If anyone out there has dreams of getting signed, I *highly* recommend this as *mandatory* reading. P.S.: I'm a blues guitarist, 46 years old, been playing since I was 14, professionally since I was about 21.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Wow, how amazingly prophetic! "Video Killed the Radio Star" was written and first recorded by "Bruce Wolley (sp?) and the Camera Club", but they've largely been forgotten in favor of the band that made a video of it.
Triva point. BWatCC had a young Thomas Dolby on keyboards.
Frank Zappa and others were pointing out the problems of the music industry in the late 70's. In a nutshell: most labels had no clue what they were getting into when they signed "rock" acts and they let the market decide what sold; then they hired guys with the same (long) hair as the kids as A&R types because they would know what was good; the A&R long hairs moved up the corporate food chain, determining what was good and what sucked and they knew because they had the same hair as the kids; somebody realised that you can't have a new type of music unless there were new clothing styles to go with it; to show the audience which clothes to wear required videos; videos needed a place to play, a clearing house for coolness; MTV was born.
Unfortuately, most people have never "discovered" music without the influence of corporate force feeding: does anybody seriously beleive that the concept of "alternative" music wasn't cooked up in a record execs office? The history of the record industry isn't that glorious: failing to pay artists for their work, failing to account for missing runs of albums, failing to maintain complete financial records and other devious machinations. That was just the Doo-Wop era! The musician as artist has always had to fight the record companies, but the "musician" as media rarely cares. It is easier to convince folks to look and act a certain way if the music is vapid and derivative but the "musician" is flashy and dresses cool. Remember Samantha Fox from the 80's? A page 3 girl (topless model) that a producer bet he could make into the musical flavour du jour with the right promotion. Unfortunately he was right.
Listen to the music that you enjoy, but be aware of the way music has been used as the thin edge of the wedge for all manner of consumer identification.
I think that right about now would be a good time to have some "new" thing. The new new wave, or whatever. The industry goes in cycles. Things get really dull, really boring, and then something happens, something new, exciting, and cool.
The new thing that happens really has to be new, exciting, and cool, not just marketed to be that way or whatever.
I think the difference today, as opposed to previously, is that not only does the new thing need to have a style, an approach to life, an attitude, etc..., not only does it have to be creative, exciting, innovative, and so forth, it also has to be innovative, creative, and "thinking outside the box" when it comes to how to get itself out to large numbers of people.
The old way of going through the record labels, finding that one "cool" person who is willing to give something different a try, finding that one cool label, or whatever - that isn't going to work anymore, most of those folks have probably been laid off.
So the media (or methods), the way you get the music out needs as much innovation as the music and genre itself. Perhaps iTunes has what it takes to do this; but until everyone owns an mp3 player or an Ipod, this might make it difficult.
And then there is the question of whether or not there really is such a thing as "talent". Is there any ONE person, whose "talent" is so far above and beyond all of the other hard-working, struggling artists that this person deserves to be placed on a pedestal like that?
It would probably take a 300-page book to explain everything I am going at here, but the relevant part to this discussion is that there needs to be "talent" at navigating this uncertain present and future with regards to "media" (i.e. CD, DVD, download, etc...). Without competent talent to navigate that, we are not going to see any more Hendrixes. But then again, that's another 300 page book.
The long and the short of it is that being an artist is very difficult if that's what you want to do. Maybe we won't have any more pop artists like we did in the past; maybe those times are over. Hendrix didn't need to die; Bon Scott didn't need to die; all of these folks didn't really need to do all of that cocaine and heroin and everything else; we know better now. We now know that cigarettes aren't all that cool anymore.
It's over. And judging from how the artists have been treated, and how "talent" is essentially being "punished" for being so talented, this might very well be a good thing. It's disturbing to see how talented people are treated by the record labels. You would think that in a free society such as America, this kind of nonsense would not be taking place. First and foremost is to respect yourself and those around you, and it seems to me that if one were to spread any message to millions and millions of people around the world it would be exactly that message - repect yourself and those around you.
Maybe the message that the world needs now is not one of style and popularity, but of self-respect and respect for other fellow human beings. Diversity and equality, education, not ignorance. So in a way, the shallowness of the nonsense is not altogether a bad thing, provided there is something else to occupy people's attention; something intelligent and interesting for people to absorb their minds in once they realize how shallow their "idols" really are.
There are a few individuals in the world, who are "talented". Then there are a few more individuals who understand talent enough to realize that it is a rare thing, and they respect this rare thing. (might I add that they also think that they are incredibly cool for realizing something that they think that only they themselves have the capacity to see...) But for the most part, a lot of the consumers don't really get this. There is so much "boilerplate" (i.e. dancing women, teenage heartbreak, fancy cars, spiky hair and guitars) that you will present a similar image to the world whether or not you are talented or not. The talent has