Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Does America Have a Malnourished Listening Audience?


Tone Taster

Recommended Posts



  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I guess that people on average aren't any dumber than they used to be. Its just that the marketing industry has perhaps gotten better at exploiting the lowest common denominator. If people buy music and are happy with that music, how can you argue against that. Not everyone is going to get into jazz fusion, heck sometimes I find it a bit pretentious myself.

 

People who study demographics and focus groups know how to reach their target audience really well. We don't always question that advertising to see if it holds up, we find it easier to follow the trends. It's not just the U.S., the whole world is becoming very image and brand concious. Some one can build a guitar exactly like a Gibson Les Paul or even better, yet we really value the name Gibson for whatever reason. Its not just marketing, somehow we think its cool to play a Gibson and not as cool to play a copy because of historical significance. You can always argue the quality of a brand but is Harley Davidson the best motorcyle or Rolex the best watch. I am sure there are better, cheaper products, but the average person associates these as being the best. I'm not really trying to pick on these brands but they are good examples of my point.

 

Some people grow up listening to only one kind of music and never really even consider liking another style. There is nothing wrong with this, it doesn't mean they don't get enjoyment out of the music. I never listen to country radio, but that doesn't mean I don't occasionally hear a song I like and maybe even buy.

 

It's easy to get in an arguement over whether Americans are getting dumber or not. Heck, being able to get on the internet and argue takes a bit of smarts. Musicians in general are probably a bit smarter (not always wiser) than the average person. So we see people around us liking simple music and we assume the whole society as dumb.

 

I have been watching Ken Burns' Jazz series again recently. We like to think that a public that liked jazz 50 years ago had to be smarter than a public that likes punk. But you have to rememeber that the most popular bands were more like the Glenn Millers and Paul Whitemans, not the real innovators like Charlie Parker. So is a girl that likes Benny Goodman because she can jitterbug to it any smarter than a girl who likes Hip Hop because she can dance to that. And guys are gonna follow whatever the girls are dancing to anyway, hormones overrule the smarts in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by webe123:

Originally posted by flagshipmile:

Corporate America becomes more and more separate from the working class America. It spoon feeds us. I agree picker.

That is a VERY important point in the discussion. There is a VAST difference in what "Corporate America" thinks and what "Working Class America" thinks. Good Point.

 

It is the commercialism that usually wins out though and usually the reason we have some of the music we have now.

Okay, I missed this one. That is the truth.

 

Now, so far we do have the web technology to get known, but you still won't get airplay or your MTV video played no matter how big, bad, and webworthy you are.

 

WEbtechnology has not obviated the need for airplay to reach the masses

 

To bring up hard tails point about those who could not afford 8th grade. How many in America can afford a computer, and a highspeed d=connection month to month?

 

Okay, now how many tune in to a radio and watch TV

 

Already, we're back on point and I'm not being an asshole anymore (I think)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you are talking commercial groups and commercial ways of advertisment....years ago there was no internet and absolutly no way an artist could get himself heard other than a major record deal.

 

But with todays technology, all of that has changed. There are Groups that can make and market their product online with no need for the major labels. Also it gives the band more control over their own product, because you have NO CONTROL or very little say if you sign a major record deal.

Yeah, good points. I agree the internet is new and there is so much mystery and possibility marketing music and anything really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Guitarzan:

that was generally speaking.

Ani Difranco has done rather well without corporate help.

Not trying to be critical...but it's funny how every time we discuss these topics...the making it in the music biz as a rebel...

...Ani Difranco is the first (and often, the only one) that is ever mentioned... :D

 

 

AnywayI dont why some of you are taking such a heavy patriotic position (maybe cuz its the 4th of July ;) ), when this thread wasnt about which country or which people are better or worse

it was a thread about music appreciation and how listening trends differ in South America and Europecompared to the US.

 

You knowjust stamping your feet and shouting that no one is better than the USAdoesnt really make any point at all.

 

How many of you American born and raised have ever really listened to European radio?

How many of you really pay any attention to music trends outside of the USA?

How many of you actually listen to lots of world music?

How many of you have ever listened to lots of music that was NOT a USA product?

(And I dont just mean stuff coming from across our immediate borders).

 

While the US has churned out some great music over the yearsand invented R&Rand pretty much most of the modern rock/pop genres that we all love

you cant deny the fact that Europes music history goes back much furtherand there is a much wider variety, by way of the many countries that make up Europe.

Also.radio in Europe tends to be heard across many countries.

So while there may be a station playing songs in the Netherlandsit is easily heard in many other countries too.

And that is why there is a greater music diversity/variety and a wider appreciation of it.

Kids just grow up listening to a whole lot of different stuffwhere here in the US, for many (not all)it often ends up being a much narrower focusand appreciation is reduced to a niche.

 

Thats not necessarily the fault of the publicnor does that make the US public dumbbut it just means that the music industry tends to dumb down its offerings and its delivery methods for a great chunk of the US music listening audience.

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by miroslav:

Thats not necessarily the fault of the publicnor does that make the US public dumbbut it just means that the music industry tends to dumb down its offerings and its delivery methods for a great chunk of the US music listening audience.

That is where it starts. But don't you think that it winds up having a trickle down effect into prevailing mentalities / comprehension/appreciation, etc . . ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not insulted or disgusted by such a topic as much as I find it a bit ridiculous.

 

First off, comparing music from back in the day to music to today just doesn't make sense. It's too different worlds, with too different times, and two very different audiences. When many of you were younger, a great car got 20 mpg, only needed an oil change every 2500-3000 miles, and was packing 150 hp. Now, they have minivans that blow away those statistics, all the while, packing more people and more punch. Music is no different. As technology advances so does taste in popular culture. I don't see many of you listening to the Big Band hits of the 1930s and 1940s like your parents, and I doubt many of your parents would have liked to sit around and listen to John Philip Sousa and Modest Musgorsky all day. It is not a matter of dumb or not. It is a matter of a changing world.

 

Secondly, the whole corporate vs. working class scenario of the music industry is simplistic and mundane. Such an argument sounds more like a Marxist theory on education then any sort of intelligent group of musicians discussing musical trends.

 

The corporate world has not victimized anyone. Call me the stupid capitalist or young ignoramus, fine. But look around you.

 

How can you say "kids these days are dumb" and "don't understand music" when many of your children are learning calculus and Shakespeare in school?

 

How can you say corporations and industry have ruined music by exposing kids to only what they want, calling today's choices limited, when there are more musical genres and songs now more than ever? It's not like the songs of yore just disappear. They are revitalized, revisited, even reperformed, and probably will still be for centuries. Bach was written in the 1740s but it's still good. Many of you cite old jazz and blues artists. They are still good as well. And with the advent of the Internet and .mp3s, kids now have access to many more songs than ever before. The cultural saturation with choice has almost overwhelmed modern youth, even to such the extent that genres are either combined or narrowed into music that never existed. You used to have soft rock and hard rock. Now, we have punk, pop punk, emo punk, hardcore, post-hardcore, metal, black metal, death metal, progressive metal, soft rock, pop rock, progressive rock, hard rock, classic rock, even neoclassical rock. You call that limited?

 

This is not a flammatory statement as much as it is a call to remind you all to sit back and think. Children are not dumber. Music companies are not more evil. The market is not evil. It's simply a matter of culture and of choice. If something does not cut it on the market, it has no place. That goes for furntiute, cars, or anything. Music is no different. Many will say the market drives the culture, but that is not true. It is the culture that drives the market. All we can do as musicians is do our best to shape the culture so that the market learns to adapt.

 

That begins on an individual level. You want children to listen to more of what you like? Introduce your children to it. Tell them to tell their friends. You want people to understand what it means to be a musician and to appreciate music the way you want? Teach them so. We cannot control all of our lives but we can do the best to control that of which we can.

Shut up and play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are a lot of good points made here.

Miro i couldn't help the Ani Difranco name drop.

i mean it isn't impossible to make it, she has obviously done well.

but it probably isn't going to change anything except give hope to some others.

if a few make it then it is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a quote from Scott Henderson on his forum:

 

Basically it's because most club owners can make more money with a local top 40 band or wet t-shirt night than they can with a national jazz act. There just aren't big audiences here in the states for it, so clubs don't offer enough money per show to cover the costs of plane tickets (expensive!), van rental, hotels (we refuse to share rooms or stay at Motel 6) and gas, food, drugs, hookers (just kidding), etc, etc.... On average, I'd say our audience just about anywhere outside the US is 5 times bigger than it is here, except for maybe at the Bottom Line in NY (but that's gone now). Why is it so lame here??? Probably because people here aren't exposed much to this type of music - and besides, this is the country that won't show tits on network TV, but they'll be happy to show someone getting stabbed or shot. America obviously has a few "cultural flaws"
So is he being an unreasonable, axe-grinding, bone pickin' artist?

 

Or is this someone in the heat of the action who knows what's up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Allan Holdsworth saying he'd played in the States more, but that the "phone isn't ringing". This was about 2 yrs. ago in a GP mag interview. I think he's playing more now, though. Goes w/ that statement w/ Henderson.

"Without music, life would be a mistake."

--from 'Beyond Good and Evil', by Friedrich Nietzsche

 

My MySpace Space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all goes back to the fact that if you want to get paid for playing music, you have to play what people are willing to pay to hear. Music is a commercial thing.

 

Artists want to express themselves and create what THEY want to create, and that's fine. But if your intended audience doesn't like it, it ain't gonna sell and you're going to be doing it for free. You can't change people's tastes just so you can sell what you want to create.

 

There are a hell of a bunch of really talented musicians that are not making it. That's because they are playing what pleases them....and there's no problem with that. They just can't reasonably expect people to pay them to do it unless it's something they want.

 

My neighbor is an exceptional Jazz saxophonist. He has recorded with some big names in Jazz, he plays in a Jazz band that records and gigs fairly regularly, he has 3 instructional books published, and keeps a roster of 70 students. His income is from the books and teaching, the gigs supplement that. When his band gigs, they play Rock and Roll. That's because nobody is willing to book them to play Jazz. He understands that in order to feed his family, he has to provide what people want to hear....not necessarily what he wants to play.

"And so I definitely, when I have a daughter, I have a lot of good advice for her."

~Paris Hilton

 

BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

It all goes back to the fact that if you want to get paid for playing music, you have to play what people are willing to pay to hear. Music is a commercial thing.

 

Artists want to express themselves and create what THEY want to create, and that's fine. But if your intended audience doesn't like it, it ain't gonna sell and you're going to be doing it for free. You can't change people's tastes just so you can sell what you want to create.

 

There are a hell of a bunch of really talented musicians that are not making it. That's because they are playing what pleases them....and there's no problem with that. They just can't reasonably expect people to pay them to do it unless it's something they want.

 

My neighbor is an exceptional Jazz saxophonist. He has recorded with some big names in Jazz, he plays in a Jazz band that records and gigs fairly regularly, he has 3 instructional books published, and keeps a roster of 70 students. His income is from the books and teaching, the gigs supplement that. When his band gigs, they play Rock and Roll. That's because nobody is willing to book them to play Jazz. He understands that in order to feed his family, he has to provide what people want to hear....not necessarily what he wants to play.

+10 :thu:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I have to agree that it is wrong to call a group of people stupid because they don't like a certain type of music.

 

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the the American poplulation prefers music that is not challenging to listen to, or I guess you can say less sophisticated.

 

I can't say that it's a problem, just a fact.

 

I would say that it is unfortunate that talented musicians can't tour here because it is un-profitable. Perhaps fine music is like fine art. It's only truly appreciated by very few people, and the masters are never appreicated until after they pass on. Tsk. Tsk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Pappy P:

Sorry I have to agree that it is wrong to call a group of people stupid because they don't like a certain type of music.

 

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the the American poplulation prefers music that is not challenging to listen to, or I guess you can say less sophisticated.

Okay, but have there senses been dulled or are they being malnourished by the managed media?

 

I did change the title of the thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by yZeCounsel:

Originally posted by Pappy P:

Sorry I have to agree that it is wrong to call a group of people stupid because they don't like a certain type of music.

 

I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of the the American poplulation prefers music that is not challenging to listen to, or I guess you can say less sophisticated.

Okay, but have there senses been dulled or are they being malnourished by the managed media?

 

I did change the title of the thread

Chicken or the egg? We have two NPR stations here. One carries classical and folk music, the other carries classical and jazz. We also have one of the few remaining commercial classical stations in the country. The three combined don't get the ratings that either the top 40 country station or the top 40 pop/rock station does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is is that earlier, I narrowed the scope of my position to instrumental rockers - who were even included in the first post.

 

And I did acknowledge that vocal music is always more popular

 

However, There are some rock sounding enough fusion cuts to be played on rock radio.

 

So is the listening audience being malnourished by market manipulation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this confirms my personal position:

 

1. All a musician can do is play what they want to play (if they can afford to) and turn other people on to music they consider to be of high quality.

 

2. All a listener can do is seek out good stuff. Fortunately, these days we have a great range of options!

 

I agree that most mass media feeds the mass audience the LCD "least common denominator", because that's the easiest way to get rich.

 

I DON'T agree that an intelligent person has to limit him/herself to the LCD. If you choose to do so, it's YOUR fault, not the mass media!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by yZeCounsel:

Okay, but have there senses been dulled or are they being malnourished by the managed media?

I write a lot if music that's basic 3-5 chord R&R/pop...

...it's very "roots" R&R/Pop music, and I like that soundits easily consumed by many

however, my listening tastes are much wider...and a lot of the stuff I listen to, will usually get frowns from the general public that happens to hear it.

"They"...usually want to listen to what is very familiar...what is very predictable...and what has been programmed into their heads by the narrow-focused repetition that you get with most radio programming.

 

To a degree...even lots of collage radio has fallen victim to "programming"....because the kids that run the stations bring with them whatever programming they received in their high-school years of listening.

It's easy to say that the radio stations ONLY play what people want to hear...but, that manner in which they play it tends to block out a lot of other musical options.

 

Example

You might get a new band or two that has a ground-breaking sound (yeah, I know...that's a stretch ;) )....and then all of a sudden, the record companies will try and cultivate a hundred other bands that have that same sound.

Then the radio stations follow suit...and flood the airwaves with nothing but THAT niche sound.

Pretty soon...it's nothing more than a drone...and the general public is hooked into it, like Pavlovs dogs.

 

I think the biggest problem with music promotion these days (record co's & radio)...is that they seem to almost always be playing catch up!

And by the time they do...whatever it is they are pushing...is often already old news.

But...a great majority of the public will be practically hypnotized by "that" trend...to the point where they block out anything else.

 

Often...many of the teens/college kids will then latch onto "their" one sound..."their" music heroes..."their" niche genre...

...and all other forms of music are not even to be considered!

 

That's why you end up with a 40 year-old that is STILL only listening to the same music he had back in high school.

 

Now that doesnt apply to 100% of the population...but it does hit the majority of the listening public (which mostly tends to be in the teen-to-middle age group).

Alsomost of the folks that are participating in this thread are probably in the minorityas we are all musicians and most of us tend to have wider musical tastes by default...and we usually listen to music a bit differently than your average Joe.

 

So...it's not a question of a "dumb" listening audience...it's a question of a "programmed" listening audience.

And...the task is to find ways of getting them interested in other stuff...in developing their taste buds.in shaking up that programming just a bit!

 

When we were kids....we all hated certain foods...

...but as we got older, we developed our taste buds, and now those same foods taste great!

(Well, most do ;) )

 

It's a question of learning to appreciate a wider range of music...

...and I think THAT has to be developed at a very early age...otherwise you end up with a lot of people stuck in their one niche genre, right on up into old age.

Now...if someone ONLY likes country pop...is that really bad?

Well no...but imagine if they had a thirst for other styles how much greater their music understanding & appreciation would beand then they in turn would pass that on to others.

 

Sure...a room full of punk rock enthusiasts will all share a common groundbut wont that get kinda boring after awhile(well, it would to me)

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

All of this confirms my personal position:

 

1. All a musician can do is play what they want to play (if they can afford to) and turn other people on to music they consider to be of high quality.

 

2. All a listener can do is seek out good stuff. Fortunately, these days we have a great range of options!

 

I agree that most mass media feeds the mass audience the LCD "least common denominator", because that's the easiest way to get rich.

 

I DON'T agree that an intelligent person has to limit him/herself to the LCD. If you choose to do so, it's YOUR fault, not the mass media!

Great summary. I believe the last part of your post is the most important. That's my point and has been my position whenever the topic of the "sad state of current popular music" arises. I think it's been ALWAYS that way.

 

However, this being the era of communications, I DO think there is a difference. Anything needs to be quicker, so in terms of pop music: the "information" transmitted may need to be very diluted for it to reduce risk (business ventures are all about reducing risk) AND very familiar and homogenic (especially in terms of sound) so that kids don't have to go "whoa! what is that?" before going to the "YEAH! COOL!", and instead, automatically go to "YEAH! COOL!".

 

I said it before and I'll say it again: I truly believe this has ALWAYS happened in commercial music (especially in the late 80's LOL!), but I HONESTLY think--trying to avoid sounding like a bitter old man--that nowadays it happens more often and w/ more intensity.

 

Are there alternatives to the mass-produced, mass-market crap? I believe there are... First of all, not all produced today is crap (I think, without going into matters of "taste"), and then you have the bunch of bands and individuals going for new sounds, etc. For these you may have to go out to your local hip bars more often, or spend countless hours on myspace, but hey, they're there. Not to mention that as revolead noted, older music has not disappeared and is still an option.

"Without music, life would be a mistake."

--from 'Beyond Good and Evil', by Friedrich Nietzsche

 

My MySpace Space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the burden of responsibility should eventually be on the musical acts that have the power to change things but don't. In (mainstream) hip-hop music, I have noticed that there is some progression in how things are being done in it for the better, albeit extremely slow. And on alt-rock/metal radio, I think there've been big acts progressing the music. Off the top of my head, I think Incubus' instrumental sections and jazzy solos, System of a Down's different take on Metal, Disturbed's progression from drop-d band to electronic influences (one evil to another, I suppose one could say), and Tool's new CD are big name acts that aren't turning out the same CD each time.

 

Conversely, Nickelback has released the same CD six times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Starcaster:

Sounds like the burden of responsibility should eventually be on the musical acts that have the power to change things but don't.

That's the point, star...

 

Whatever they do, in order to make it big and have the labels agree on good, omnipresent and heavy marketing ploys, they have to filter their music through the tastes of producers and executives. That's precisely what we're talking about here.

"Without music, life would be a mistake."

--from 'Beyond Good and Evil', by Friedrich Nietzsche

 

My MySpace Space

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the thread focused more on the "producers and executives" choosing 'packaged music.' But I refer to the big/established acts. True, apparently they have ways of destroying you and your music if you don't cooperate in releasing the same music over and over again. But that's not what it seems like at times. Does it matter what genre we're talking about in this discussion? I was under the impression it informally focused on music with guitar in it, not pop and hip-hop acts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing that you have to realize is that, in general, people listen to music to relax and to enjoy it, NOT to be educated about a "better" style or genre of music.

 

If you think that they should be "exposed" to a particular style or genre that you happen to like, so that they can be "educated" and "learn to like it", what is the difference between that and what the industry has been accused of in this thread? It's still "suggesting" what you want them to listen to.

 

People will seek out the style of music they want to listen to. Some genre will have a large following and some will not. As a musician, you can only decide if you want to make money or play what YOU like....if what you like happens to also be what the mainstream likes, then you are good to go. If not, then you will probably have to make some sacrifices to play what you like....that's a choice only you can make.

 

You cannot change what the mainstream wants to hear. If you throw what you do out there and it fits with what the people want to hear, then you are one of the very few lucky ones.

 

I think that is extremely difficult to do with instrumental music....not quite so difficult with vocal music. I think it's probably much easier with vocal music if you can find a niche with the lyrics. If you can find a subject that a large group can relate to then you can make it big. This is, and has always been, especially true with kids and their various rebellions against the "adult establishment"...it doesn't really matter how tight the music is, as long as you are one of them and they can relate to the lyrics.

 

The bottom line is that if you want to make it in the music industry, you are going to have to pander to somebody.

"And so I definitely, when I have a daughter, I have a lot of good advice for her."

~Paris Hilton

 

BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAA!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between education and indoctrination.

 

When a teacher offers up a list of interesting books for reading...

...it's not about "suggesting" what type of books you should ALWAYS read...over and over and over.

It's just a way to open the door...and then you, the reader can explore further if you like...or not.

To not offer up any "suggestions"most people would never discover any other possibilities.

A good teacher knows how to guideand not beat you over the head into submission. ;)

 

That's the same with learning to appreciate all kinds of music...it actually puts MORE power in YOUR hands to make better decisions about what you like to listen to.

When you are only exposed to one kind of genre...over and over...you are programmed to only like that.

 

That's the main problem with many record co's/radio stations these days...

...programming you to listen to what THEY think will better sell a product...and NOT to extend any music appreciation.

 

Think about this...

 

Whatever kind of music you like right now...where do you think that appreciation came from...?

You sure weren't born with it! :D

 

It came from you learning about that music...from you discovering that music.

And I'm sure you didn't just accidentally stumble upon it...but rather, you learned about it from someone else...it was passed on to you, even if you didn't perceiving it as "being educated" about it.

 

So...the more choices we learn about at an early age...the better we will develop our musical palate. :thu:

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who listened to commercial FM radio in the late 60's and early 70's and then listens to today's commercial FM would know for a fact that the two experiences are VASTLY different.

 

"Back in the day", DJs were not limited in what they could play. They could pick ANY artist in their library (or bring in their own records) and play ANY track (as long as it didn't contain blatant profanity. You could listen to a station all day and not hear the same song twice and you'd hear a much larger selection of artists across multiple styles. They could also play MANY songs in a row or even entire albums! You actually LEARNED about new music from listening to the radio.

 

 

Fast-forward to 2006. Yes it is a completely different economic enviroment. Capitalism feeds on itself and demands more and more "fuel" (revenue). Today's radio playlists are tightly controlled and limited to specific genres. Radio has been comandeered by people who believe they can give the audience what they want to hear (or should want to hear) and they "know" that the audience wants repition to the utmost degree. Yes, there are trends that get pounced upon (note the shift earlier in this decade from Britney-fluff to a more rock-oriented presence in the pop charts), but they still apporach the format the same way - repitition, repitition, repitition. It's gotten to the point where radio networks like "Jack" have done away with DJs and you just get songs sandwiched between ads and soundbytes.

 

I don't think anyone should take offense at Yze's comment that audiences are "dumbed-down". It doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means they have gotten used to what is being fed to them (like a baby and pablum) and they don't have the inclination to go out and search for other music that may be more complex, sophisticated or challenging.

 

To answer the question: Does America have a malnourished listening audience?

 

An emphatic YES.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sasquatch51:

Another thing that you have to realize is that, in general, people listen to music to relax and to enjoy it, NOT to be educated about a "better" style or genre of music.

 

If you think that they should be "exposed" to a particular style or genre that you happen to like, so that they can be "educated" and "learn to like it", what is the difference between that and what the industry has been accused of in this thread? It's still "suggesting" what you want them to listen to.

 

People will seek out the style of music they want to listen to. Some genre will have a large following and some will not. As a musician, you can only decide if you want to make money or play what YOU like....if what you like happens to also be what the mainstream likes, then you are good to go. If not, then you will probably have to make some sacrifices to play what you like....that's a choice only you can make.

 

You cannot change what the mainstream wants to hear. If you throw what you do out there and it fits with what the people want to hear, then you are one of the very few lucky ones.

 

I think that is extremely difficult to do with instrumental music....not quite so difficult with vocal music. I think it's probably much easier with vocal music if you can find a niche with the lyrics. If you can find a subject that a large group can relate to then you can make it big. This is, and has always been, especially true with kids and their various rebellions against the "adult establishment"...it doesn't really matter how tight the music is, as long as you are one of them and they can relate to the lyrics.

 

The bottom line is that if you want to make it in the music industry, you are going to have to pander to somebody.

I think part of Yze's premise is that people can't seek out music that isn't being made easily available to them (read: played on the radio). He is not talking about forcing "better" music on people, but rather, having a public forum for that music so that people can "seek it out". I have discovered several radio stations that I like over the years (mostly college radio) by spinning the dial. If it's out there, I'll find it...but if it's not there and the people who play certain types of music are forced to relocate to Europe to make a living...then I won't be able to find it.

 

I'm not sure why you are defending a industry that has a stranglehold on the type of music it "allows" to go over the airwaves. Just look at the battles bewteen such artists as Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson and Country Radio.

 

I think you don't have a leg to stand on here, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...