Paging Bruce Swedien: Whaddya think of this theory?

[Angelo Clematide]

-

[Barandine Vondenger]

Originally posted by robmix:

 

BTW, is there anybody who believes MJ really came up with that guitar lick on Beat It? )

Wow, we've probably descended into a conversation that Bruce may not want to participate in as he and MJ are long time friends and it serves no purpose for him to enter into a pissing match to defend Michael. But I will

 

Ted, I wasn't there for Thriller Michael actually does come up with incredible guitar parts as well as drums, strings, piano, and whatever else is needed. He'll sing every note and beat of song to his programmer du jour or the session musicians. In some cases he'll multitrack his beatbox and vocal melody lines then build the song piece by piece, choosing the appropriate sounds to replace his voice. It really is incredible !!!!! On one session MJ sang each note of every chord and passing tones to a session guitar player. Insane. On a horn session with Jerry Hey, MJ sang each note of a 4 part horn section line by line. And, Steve Porcaro once told me story where MJ sang each note of an orchestral arrangement to the arranger while the string players waited in the live room. And his time, his groove is just out of this world.

 

You may not like the man, you may not like the music, but his talent is beyond comparison.[/QB]

I have no thing aginst mikeymeladd.. His talent is obvious to any with open eyes. his GENIUS is plain to see as well from listenin' to his vocal lines and whatnot..

DOES he write ALL his own lyrics?

Why did he HAVE TO "sang" them notes? why not just scritch and scratch em down on some staff paper and have 'em copied? and give em to all the cool cats and daddios?

is his sanging them notes like, REGULAR studio behavior? does everyone in all studios with folkes waitin' and burnin' up the clock sang notes to the arrangers?

Thats why I'm larnin' to write and read notes so I may be able to just hand out sheets and say PLAY IT as written..

DOES HE PLAY GEETAR? he HAS TO play pianner yes?

I really really liked that tune BEN.

did he do any of the instuments on that tune??

or did he JUST SANG?

Mikey Oneglove is very talented and a great sanger and maybe NO BODY ELSE could have helped to put thriller where it was. mike was part of a TEAM .. An ensemble if you will. .

it's interesting to hear from folkes who saw MJ work an' all and it's real cool to hear how he did certain thangs in the studio.

But if I were to sang lines to an arranger would I be looked at as talented? or woefully lacking in MUSICIANSHIP skills such as note reading and writing..

MI,MI, MI:

I wanted piano stuff in my songs so I learned to play.

I dragged home a free one,(a hunnerd years old) fixed it and played it.

played it BY EAR! then after the bandages came offe my poor ears I larned to play with my fangers. MUCH BETTER.(cricket chirp here).

I wanted Violin stuff in one of my tunes. Guess what? think I squeaked and squawked it? no way jose!

I played it with true notes.no lessons .. DUH???.

same with VOCALS, guitar or drums or bass or keys or what the fok ever.

I routinely sang lead lines to myself (that I hear in my haid) THEN FINDE THEM on my own fretboards or keyboards or whatever and move them jams to cansville, if you follow..

 

MJ

so maybe mikey did the same thang. Maybe he did'nt HAVE TIME to write them notes sos the violin cats could read em out.

maaaaaybe, he was UNDER THE GUN so he did what he always did. He did what he could. He used his talent to MOVE THE JAMS.

MIKE? he's great. Q is great. BRICEY? great.. gregito? GREAT! .

Great, greater, greatest..

Now I have to go finde THRILLER and listen to all the damn greatness..

Dammit!

Great!

[Brittanylips]

Lee - isn't the dichotomy between big label vs. indy music somewhat false? I think it's more like a continuum.

 

The overwhelming majority of indy artists want to succeed and sell as many records as possible. At the point that their record sales go up, they graduate from indy to major label. I don't think there's a kabal that keeps the good bands down while promoting the bad ones.

 

If you , me, anyone , likes stuff that wouldn't appeal to most people, chances are we'll find that in niche markets rather than a major release. But that's not the fault of the music business, it's the nature of supply and demand. No?

 

-P. L. & B.

[Brittanylips]

In the case of MJ, virtuostic marketing promoted a virtuostic performer.

 

Like him, hate him, you can't argue with, in my humble op, one of the century's greatest musicians.

 

- Peace, Love, and Blips

[Lee Flier]

B-Lips, I agree with you. I don't think there's a "natural" dichotomy between indie and major label, that was exactly what I was trying to say in my last post.

 

And I DO, and HAVE, liked a lot of music that appeals to many people, and was released on major labels, as I also said, so your point about "niche" markets is lost on me. I listen to a very wide variety of music, so sure, some of it is bound to be of limited appeal and I don't expect otherwise. But MUCH of my favorite stuff, as I said, sold an awful lot of records.

 

And no I don't think there's a deliberate conspiracy to keep talented people down, but I do blame stupidity and short sightedness on the part of major labels and radio for the fact that there isn't much good out there nowadays. Again this is a recent thing - as radio and concert promotion and labels have increasingly become conglomerated and owned by unrelated companies, they have applied their short term thinking, focus group oriented business models to music, in relentless pursuit of a bigger bottom line, and that ain't good.

 

To wit:

 

- "Mass appeal" isn't what it used to be. Nowadays you can sell a million albums on a major label and still get dropped, or considered a failure. Would you call a million sales a "niche" market? I wouldn't, but the majors do (and they didn't used to). With the amounts of money they spend, they expect ridiculous returns, and they are almost completely unwilling to take artistic risks.

 

- There is practically no such thing as artist development anymore. If you have a hit single and your second record doesn't do as well, you'll get dropped and replaced with the next person likely to produce a hit single. The days of labels believing in an artist and being willing to let them ramp up over several years are pretty much gone, and that leaves out a great deal of talented folks.

 

- Demographics studies have devolved into this hilarious tail wagging the dog scenario. Studies show teenagers to be the biggest buyers of records... so the labels sign artists aimed at the teenage markets... repeat study... guess what? Teenagers are still the biggest record buyers cuz umm... nobody signs and markets music for adults. Never mind that baby boomers are still a huge group and music is still hugely important to them, as they are still willing to fork over $300 to see Springsteen or McCartney... but is there anybody new around who would really appeal to them AND is marketed that way?

 

Etc. etc. Of course I realize the labels have to make money but their business model is just totally screwed at this point, and certainly not conducive to breaking much real talent.

[Brittanylips]

Lee writes:

 

Mass appeal" isn't what it used to be. Nowadays you can sell a million albums on a major label and still get dropped, or considered a failure. Would you call a million sales a "niche" market? I wouldn't, but the majors do (and they didn't used to). With the amounts of money they spend, they expect ridiculous returns, and they are almost completely unwilling to take artistic risks.

 

B writes:

 

How well I know! Worked with a million selling failure for a few years. Still, I dont conclude that the labels are unwilling to take risks. Most albums the labels release are risks, and dont turn a profit. One of the reasons why the labels profiteering is so vulture-like is to compensate for all the unprofitable albums the profitable ones must subsidize.

 

But you know, the labels aren't a monolithic entity of one mind. Many execs are willing to go out on a limb. But it is true that a lot are just looking to replicate prior success through formula.

 

Lee Writes:

 

- There is practically no such thing as artist development anymore. If you have a hit single and your second record doesn't do as well, you'll get dropped and replaced with the next person likely to produce a hit single. The days of labels believing in an artist and being willing to let them ramp up over several years are pretty much gone, and that leaves out a great deal of talented folks.

 

B writes:

 

Lots of times its the artists fault. Most have the opportunity to record at smaller labels after getting dumped by the big ones, but just dont have the wherewithal or talent to resurrect their careers. Some do though. The guy I referred to above got dumped by a major and went to a smaller label (still, with major label distribution) but never really made a great record. It would be easy to blame the business for his failure, but at the end of the day, it was really his fault.

 

Lee writes:

 

Demographics studies have devolved into this hilarious tail wagging the dog scenario. Studies show teenagers to be the biggest buyers of records... so the labels sign artists aimed at the teenage markets... repeat study... guess what? Teenagers are still the biggest record buyers cuz umm... nobody signs and markets music for adults. Never mind that baby boomers are still a huge group and music is still hugely important to them, as they are still willing to fork over $300 to see Springsteen or McCartney... but is there anybody new around who would really appeal to them AND is marketed that way?

 

B writes:

 

No. But in a way that makes sense: the musicians the Boomers are paying $300 to see, Springsteen, McCartney, Sting, Madonna, WERE aimed at the teenage market when they were first launched by the majors (when the artists themselves were practically teenaged). The teenagers who bought their records grew up to become the Boomers and now pay big bucks to see their now geriatric pop stars perform. But none of these pop stars were launched in middle age.

 

Standing back to view the forest rather than the trees

 

I know theres all sorts of injustice, and frustrated talented people, and music industry rats, but I just think that the publics demand for great musicians trumps everything else. If theres a great musician, young or ancient, and the public wants them, some sort of mechanism can be found to distribute their work.

 

Lee writes:

 

Of course I realize the labels have to make money but their business model is just totally screwed at this point, and certainly not conducive to breaking much real talent

 

B writes:

 

So what do you propose? Say you stumble on a musician you think is really great, and that millions of people would pay to own a recording. What would you do? What would you do differently?

 

-Peaceloveandbrittanylips

[Steve LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

I am sure, in years to come, historians will say that "Thriller" was definitely as big or bigger a success musically and artistically, as it was financially.

 

With all due respect I do not feel this will come to pass. I would be surprised if the forum agrees with you also. I do not personally know anyone who currently feels that "Thriller" is a huge artistic and musical work beyond its sales records.

 

Artistically, it was the apex of Michael's career. It had good songs. Mostly, it had mass appeal. I never bought a copy of the album, but my mother did. It is an example of a truly great business model for the market as it existed at that time.

 

Had Michael gone on to do artistically great things, people might think differently about "Thriller" and what it jump started. But Michael went on to become an artistic joke and "Thriller" remians the high point of his musical output. Much of the attention it received was due to the excellent support and release schedule it enjoyed and the turn toward visual aspects of the business. Michael's appearance on the Motown special in '83 was huge. The "Thriller" video gained a lot of interest because it was the most intense effort of the growing music video craze up to that time.

 

Your comment seems to indicate that you believe "Thriller" is in the same class artistically as "Sgt Pepper", "Are You Experienced", "Nevermind", "Pet Sounds", "Highway 61 Revisted", etc. It did create a lot of excitement, but so did Madonna, Boy George and the Go'Go's. I think the true artistry was in the marketing. Alot of people get their goosebumps not from the music, but from the sound of the cash register.

really though

 

A few examples of pop albums that IMO are not only sonically better (a whole lot) but artistically deeper. Also, the hits off these albums will stand the test of time much better IMO...

 

Prince - 1999, Purple Rain, Around the World in a Day

Madonna - Like a Virgin, True Blue

Phil Collins - Hello I Must Be Going, No Jacket Required

Yes - 90125

 

now, if you want to talk demographics and all the marketing jazz, well, Thriller gains points in that area but as an album of music it mostly sucked compared to other stuff being released in the early 80s

 

of course, I think almost everything sucked in the 80s because more than ever before the music transitioned from 'artistically inspired' to 'financially inspired'. Yeah, people in the music business have always been interested in making as much money as possible, it was just amazing how far greed went in the 80s to stamp out anyone who made music for pure reasons...and the trend continues.

 

blah blah

[Angelo Clematide]

-

[Tedly Nightshade]

First allow me to say that if I hurt anybody's feelings, including Brucie the Viking's, I am sorry for it!

 

I would have just as soon Thriller had not been brought up, but I am uncomfortable with the assertion that it was a good thing for music. Lee as usual articulates things better than I do, excepting a poetic interlude here or there, and the situation she describes may be, I am concerned, the legacy of the extreme marketing and extreme sales of any single album, especially one that sought so forwardly to market itself in every move taken, as far as can be seen. I would contrast this to something like Dark Side of the Moon which seemed to tap into some unarticulated public need and frame of mind in such an uncanny way, while doing nothing apparent to cater to mass marketing. I submit that the unlooked-for success of such an album is a very different case.

 

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

To wit:

 

- "Mass appeal" isn't what it used to be. Nowadays you can sell a million albums on a major label and still get dropped, or considered a failure. Would you call a million sales a "niche" market? I wouldn't, but the majors do (and they didn't used to). With the amounts of money they spend, they expect ridiculous returns, and they are almost completely unwilling to take artistic risks.

 

- There is practically no such thing as artist development anymore. If you have a hit single and your second record doesn't do as well, you'll get dropped and replaced with the next person likely to produce a hit single. The days of labels believing in an artist and being willing to let them ramp up over several years are pretty much gone, and that leaves out a great deal of talented folks.

The situation Lee describes is very unhealthy for music and musicians, and I fear it is the legacy of the deliberately made and marketed blockbusters of the 80's.

 

--------------------------------

Anybody up for discussing Craig's initial query? I personally don't feel that the term "mechanical" begins to describe something like mic placement with any justice. Something like a record-cutting lathe, yes. Analog tape? Pretty borderline at best.

 

I also feel that tracking to tape is a very different kind of thing than tuning an instrument, substituting another instrument, or selecting and placing a microphone. Maybe that's why the original topic seems entirely neglected? Maybe there's not much to the theory after all?

 

Still, I really appreciate the spirit in which Craig came up with such a theory!

[Bruce Swedien]

Folks......

 

No one here hurt my feeliings.(After all, the royalty checks are made out to Me!!!!)

 

I love you all! You appear, at first glance, to be pretty decent folks....

 

Just do me one favor - Don't wallow in the Sour Grapes!! That's the most un-healthy thing that I've seen done around here!!! Get your collective ass out there and make some really good music!

 

I merely wanted to help! I have to leave for New York in a couple of days.... I'm going to make me a BIG HIT RECORD!!!!(And it ain't with Michael Jackson.)

 

Brucie The Viking!!!

[Anderton]

<>

 

And take it from me, at second glance too. I think a lot of what you're seeing here regarding MJ is that the forumites are in general savvy enough to recognize significant musical talent, regardless of what form it takes. Yet when you see the medai hype, the rumors of bankruptcy, the plastic surgeries, the accusations of child molesting etc. (which in my opinion are probably baseless), your heart has to go out to the guy. If the experience of being Michael Jackson isn't overwhelming to him, then he's a far better man that I. I have a hard enough time dealing with estimated taxes and magazine deadlines!!!

 

Bruce, have a great time up in New York and please feel free to tell us all about it (well, at least what you can) when you get back. Thanks again for being here and posting away. It's been a great holiday present and you've planted a lot of seeds in people's brains...definitely including mine.

[John Sayers]

Lee Writes:

 

- There is practically no such thing as artist development anymore. If you have a hit single and your second record doesn't do as well, you'll get dropped and replaced with the next person likely to produce a hit single. The days of labels believing in an artist and being willing to let them ramp up over several years are pretty much gone, and that leaves out a great deal of talented folks.

Lee - I followed the rise of Keith Urban who I first met back in 95. He had just had his third album attempt rejected by warners. - they had paid for all three attempts.

 

In frustration he then moved to EMI and new management and his next release wasn't untill 97 which had moderate success - he then released a new album in 2000 that finally went double platinum and he is now one of the top ten US country artists and has just released another chart successful product.

 

The people behind him from management through to record companies have been a consistant

factor in his success, my friend Greg Shaw was mowing lawns in Nashville to support him, - it's been a long road of development which most don't hear about -they just see him as some kind of instant success - which he definitely has not been.

 

cheers

john

[Tedly Nightshade]

It's a deal Bruce! You make A BIG HIT RECORD! and I'll work on making the very best recordings of the very best music I can. Two ENTIRELY different projects!

[Lee Flier]

Well yeah that was kind of my point John... almost nobody is an "instant" success. It takes years of development and, usually, the expertise and collaborative efforts of several other folks to make things happen. There are people outside of labels (like managers) who still have that kind of faith in artists to stick with them through all those stages of development... but it's very rare now for the labels to do that, and they have to have the idea that the artist will eventually sell, not just 500,000 or even a million records, but many millions. I don't think that's very good for music.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Yet when you see the medai hype, the rumors of bankruptcy, the plastic surgeries, the accusations of child molesting etc. (which in my opinion are probably baseless), your heart has to go out to the guy.

Well...maybe we should all just say that he's the greatest person and artist alive...

...and then that would end this discussion.

 

But...MJ is not the only BIG artist out there...and many of them do not have the "bad publicity" that's befallen poor MJ.

Hmmmmakes you wonder how he got into this unfortunate position when so many other greats seem to avoid it.

 

Hey...his entire world is HIS creation...it is his OWN hype!!!

The plastic surgeries...the weird media stunts...and oh...

...to those who think different, sorry...

but MJs obsession with little boys...well, its not "baseless"...rather its quite obvious

...though you can dismiss it if you like, just because MJ puts out a few big-selling albums.

 

The thing that's a bit odd here...is that some folks are now tiptoeing...???

 

Bruce Swedien brought up the whole artistic qualityVSsales aspect of MJ/Thriller

..and then a bunch of folks responded to that.

Nowjust because some have been a bit negative on the artistic/long-term value of Thriller and MJ as an artist

all of a sudden, feathers are getting ruffled???

 

You knowwe can pay homage to Bruce the Viking for his work

and yet STILL be able to say that we dont much care for MJ

its OKreally!

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Brittanylips:

How well I know! Worked with a million selling failure for a few years. Still, I dont conclude that the labels are unwilling to take risks. Most albums the labels release are risks, and dont turn a profit. One of the reasons why the labels profiteering is so vulture-like is to compensate for all the unprofitable albums the profitable ones must subsidize.

Sure, but again... 1) this didn't used to be such an issue in the past. And 2) Even though it's never a guarantee that any given record will succeed, you have to concede that even the "failures" now are much more likely to be, from a musical and image point of view, those that they feel have a shot at selling many millions - i.e. taking little artistic risk.

 

But you know, the labels aren't a monolithic entity of one mind. Many execs are willing to go out on a limb.

Yeah, and a lot are out of a job if they do. Mind you, not that I personally think this is such a terrible thing... what I am hoping is that some of the very talented producers and A&R and promotional folks who've been fired from labels start their own smaller labels and independent promotional companies... some are already starting to do this and that's all great!

 

Lots of times its the artists fault. Most have the opportunity to record at smaller labels after getting dumped by the big ones, but just dont have the wherewithal or talent to resurrect their careers. Some do though. The guy I referred to above got dumped by a major and went to a smaller label (still, with major label distribution) but never really made a great record. It would be easy to blame the business for his failure, but at the end of the day, it was really his fault.

Yeah, that happens, but I think a lot of great musicians are inherently kind of fragile people and a lot of them just get destroyed by the rags-to-riches-to-rags story that's been repeated so many times, and just don't have the werewithal to get it together. Sure you can blame the artist, but the fact is we don't know what some of them could have done had they been able to develop in a more protected environment. We may be losing a LOT by looking the other way and saying it's all the artist's fault, even if on a certain level it is. I think a lot of indie bands now understand that, and are making it a point to develop on their own for many years before bothering to look at major labels (if in fact they ever intend to). But not everybody is cut out for the totally indie road either.

 

But in a way that makes sense: the musicians the Boomers are paying $300 to see, Springsteen, McCartney, Sting, Madonna, WERE aimed at the teenage market when they were first launched by the majors (when the artists themselves were practically teenaged). The teenagers who bought their records grew up to become the Boomers and now pay big bucks to see their now geriatric pop stars perform. But none of these pop stars were launched in middle age.

Yes, so the argument goes... but the point is the boomers are still a HUGE group, population wise, and they still love music. There's no excuse for not trying to break new artists that target older people.

 

I know theres all sorts of injustice, and frustrated talented people, and music industry rats, but I just think that the publics demand for great musicians trumps everything else. If theres a great musician, young or ancient, and the public wants them, some sort of mechanism can be found to distribute their work.

Sure but it is not necessarily going to have a decent budget or afford the artist a decent living. And as far as "the public wanting them" again that can be the tail wagging the dog... "the public" can't know it wants somebody unless they hear them, probably repeatedly, and since people are staying away from local clubs in droves I don't know how they're supposed to hear new talent without some promotional clout. There are lots of other factors in major success besides talent, and as of right now there's little middle ground between major and completely indie. THAT is what I hope changes.

 

So what do you propose? Say you stumble on a musician you think is really great, and that millions of people would pay to own a recording. What would you do? What would you do differently?

Well first of all I'd change my business model so that an artist doesn't HAVE to sell "millions" to turn a profit. The "million selling failure" should be extinct. If you sell (or could be expected to sell) a million records, or half a million for that matter, you should be considered a success and be able to have access to the best studios, the most talented engineers and producers etc. available. I mean really! Who here wouldn't be thrilled to make a record every year to two years in a great studio with a great team, for the next 20 years, and each time sell half a mil to a million copies to a dedicated audience who really gets and is moved by what you do? And why the hell can't this be profitable? Why is this level of sales suddenly relegated to "indie" status and a miniscule budget? Any additional "millions" should be considered gravy, manna from heaven, whatever.

 

That means changing the whole MTV mentality, the whole state of commercial radio and the huge cost of getting a song added to a playlist... etc. Hopefully satellite radio will help with that and possibly even drive some of the commercial stations to get a clue... though I'm not holding my breath on that last part.

 

I would also, as I alluded to, make sure that an artist had enough time to develop properly and not too much was expected of them too soon, nor would they be thrust into a set of circumstances that would be likely to wreck their lives before they could ever even become what they might become.

 

I'd get back into things like label package tours and other fun stuff to get audiences interested again (and not charge so fargin much for tickets). And I'd probably circumvent the usual concert venues (since a lot of times it's the promoters and Ticketmaster and their ilk who drive the prices so high) and go for wackier ideas like giant house parties, business lunch hours (for those artists I mentioned who might target the older folks), renting a big truck with a stage on it and driving around the country playing (and maybe videotaping it for a reality show, those are cheap )... anything to bring music to places where it might not occur to people to have music.

 

In short, I would make creativity and long term thinking a priority over formula and short term profit. Not that you wouldn't have to have a certain amount of short term profit, and that would probably mean some formulaic stuff... but again, it just wouldn't be the priority or the expectation. That's what I'd do differently.

 

There are some smaller labels and promoters who are already starting to do some of this stuff, just in the last year or two, and I am hoping in the next few years their efforts will pay off. We will see.

[Tedly Nightshade]

I agree with Miroslav. Bruce made a statement that he believes that the sales phenomenon that was Thriller was a very good thing for the music industry, in large part exactly because it was a sales phenomenon that brought people back into the record stores. I think it is entirely fair and relevant to address that statement. And it is very relevant to present the reality that such exceptional sales phenomenons have become the standard by which artists are judged as to their continued opportunities to be presented to the public.

 

Other than Craig's comments just now, I have seen only the most oblique references to MJ's non-musical activities. Honestly his attempt to defend the forumites here to Bruce rings very strangely to me. It's not on the basis of any scandal-sheet sensationalism that we are critiquing Thriller, but on the basis of Thriller's impact on the music industry, the very issue which with Bruce introduced the topic.

 

I am personally pleased to that the denizens of this forum treat our distinguished visitor in very much the same way as we treat each other. Perhaps in light of his prominence in the industry and well-publicized successes, we should treat him with a certain deference and fail to challenge statements that strike some of us as worthy of debate. Perhaps not.

 

In any case I am enjoying the thread where Bruce is expounding upon early reflections and the like, excepting the part where he congratulates halljams as having a brain and belonging to the forum both, as if this were some kind of rarity. One might suspect that it is the deferential attitude that seems to please him as much as the quality of the questions.

[Anifa]

No one here hurt my feeliings.(After all, the royalty checks are made out to Me!!!!)

... and that's where it counts!!!

 

The beauty of being in a position such as yours is the fact that long after the fame of an artist dies, or becomes tainted (as in Michael's case), the credentials earned by engineers and other expert fields will add to their resume of collective efforts. New acts will follow and the support team, both the production end and the business side, will continue to score solid contracts with HITMAKERS long after the previous idols have been forgotten.

 

Thank you very much for the time that you've spent hanging here with us at SSS, and I certainly hope that you'll drop in and say hello from time to time. Craig is an absolutely wonderful host here and you will find this place to be a great dwelling where you can interact with like minded people, people in different fields of expertise, learn new techniques or discuss pro's and con's of equipment, troubleshoot technical problems on audio equipment or computer equipment, debate PC vs. Mac , share personal or business experiences with others, or just hang and talk shop or shoot the breeze. There is an immense amount of knowledge here in Craig's dynasty; a wealth of information is contained inside these pages here on the SSS and throughout the entire Musicplayer network.

 

Collectively, there are enough people in every field of expertise here on the MusicPlayer forums to establish an internationally based record label without cutting any corners on any aspect of the business; while producing professional and polished results with full blown marketing and distribution.

 

In just the short time that you've been interactive here, I'm sure that you have witnessed the level of thought that goes into the responses given on every topic. The place is capable of getting real relaxed at times, with horseplay and sometimes even a flame war here and there, but the fact remains that the intellectual input is ALWAYS here to be found amongst all else. It's a great place to feed the hunger of intelligent conversation and to experience the presence of the greatest common interest of all; MUSIC.

 

Heh, iffen ya ever get a wild hair up yonder where ya wanna do sumptin professional on a personal level with a bunch of other pro's, semi-pro's, and aspiring wannabees... this place if full of people that love to get involved in projects that produce real results; and here you can make music without the men in suits. One of these days, when Craig has some free time, perhaps I'll loop him into a collab project... calling Craig... are ya listnin??? Sometimes, doing music for the fun of it with friends, rather than the demand of it from the suits; it takes on a whole new meaning. Your input and involvement would certainly be welcome and encouraged.

 

Good luck on your new gig coming up, and when you get a chance, check in from time to time.

[theblue1]

Michael Jackson's pending legal problems and decades long career implosion notwithstanding, I was never a big fan. He had a handful of very infectious hits, a couple of strong, well-produced and packaged albums, a couple of nice dance moves.

 

But I can think of at least a half dozen pop-soul artists I'd put above him. Prince, Curtis Mayfield, Marvin Gaye, Sly, Al Green, Stevie Wonder, Smokey...

[TeleCarlos]

Just a comment on the up or down sales crap...

 

I believe people's tastes are down. For some reason, a lot of million sellers albums are just crap. Good music made by good performers or dedicated artists that have a "unique vision" or whatever will just never (OK, at most, seldom) be recognized by the "mainstream" or "popular choice". Sure, there are exceptions; I bet some of you wil name some of the to prove a point, but I consider those exceptions.

 

The norm: good as in Wilco, XTC, etc. or whatever > will not gather a lot of sales. Of course, the people that like them probably have good taste and are and will be forever a music fan

 

Bad as in Britney, Ricky and other ho's (dis meant for also similar MALE artists) >> will sell millions to young uneducated music listeners that also buy Big Macs and similar crap. They like flavor of the week stuff and may reach an age were they will no longer even be into music. They are casual or fashion buyers, soon to be into something else.

 

This is not a fit all scenario, just one of the possible ones that I believe to be true to an extent.

 

To all you music makers and producers: a hit does not make you great, your craft, creativity and what not, does! Funny how you will get a certain "status" based on the "hits" some have. Talk about a double edge, or irony, you are great when a lot off stupid people buy it!

 

Not meant to be offensive. Anyone that is in this forum is here because loves music to a deeper extent than most, so I believe you are all good "artists" in a sense, hence, educated music fans. Sure, we'll disagree... a lot, but all are "experts" to some degree; at least better than wal-mart or week-end shoppers.

 

Analogy: I didn't like wine, now I've learned to appreciate it. Of course, much remains to be learned, as in everything else. An acquired and educated taste. Sound like an ass, don't I? I'm open to growth.

 

Anyway, sorry for the silly rant, may have been a bit OT but, hell, I was just passing by.

 

Just believe in music. Love it and respect it. Very few do, nowadays!

 

Happy New Year!!!

[Tedly Nightshade]

Lee completely knocks me out with her well-thought out, knowledgable posts.

 

I couldn't agree more strongly.

 

I will add that many of the great hits of yesteryear such as those by Hank Williams Sr, Johnny Cash, Patsy Cline, sold less than 50,000 copies to become hit records at that time. Now, many of those songs must have sold in the millions, on reissues and compilations.

 

Many have pointed out that immediate sales are one thing and catalog sales (long term) are quite another. Sure, a record sold x copies this year, but how many will it sell over the next 20 years? How many copies of Kind of Blue sold in the first year, and now there's one leaping off the rack every few minutes? In neglecting this kind of long-term value, which indeed is a great deal of what is keeping the record industry going right now, we are doing music a tremendous disservice.

[David R]

Originally posted by Tedly Nightshade:

...How many copies of Kind of Blue sold in the first year, and now there's one leaping off the rack every few minutes? In neglecting this kind of long-term value, which indeed is a great deal of what is keeping the record industry going right now, we are doing music a tremendous disservice.

This is one of the reasons Branford Marsalis left Columbia to form his own label. They kept expecting him to meet Kind Of Blue's current numbers and he kept demanding to see KOB's 1959 numbers. The labels are definitely focussing on the "better to burn out than fade away" philosophy. Sure, the candy-coated flavour of the month will sell millions of copies, but I don't really see anyone buying NSync's back catalogue. And Backstreet Who? Those guys can't get arrested anymore, so it seems.

 

I completely agree with Lee: one of my favourite labels out there in terms of how they're doing things is Ropeadope. They're fully supportive of their artists, and stay out of their musicmaking process. They put on a package tour featuring their artists and other likeminded musicians not on their label, called the New Music Seminar. Other labels that stand out to me are the boutique soul labels like Ubiquity or Stone's Throw.

 

As far as the whole Thriller debate goes, I liked MJ's music well enough, and listened quite a bit when I was a kid, but as I developed as a musician I never really gave it much thought. Then, at the end of high school, the bass player in the band I was in (phenomenal player) had all the MJ reissues in his CD player. I asked him what was up (previously we'd been listening to Herbie Hancock and Victor Wooten in the car), and he said "Have you ever really paid attention to the stuff on these records? The production's really well done." And I admitted that I hadn't really listened carefully. I was impressed with the attention to detail on the production, instrumental and vocal layers and such. As songs/music, some inspired me, some didn't. The thing with any major superstar is that their music, fortunately or unfortunately, has to answer to their image and their publicity. A surprising amount of people write Elton John off nowadays not for his sub-par material but for his homosexuality and his mouth, for instance. MJ's had his fair share of stuff to answer to and overcome. I haven't heard Invincible or HIStory, but recent history (pun not intended) has proven that those two records haven't been enough to save him.

 

David

 

EDIT: Bruce, it is a privilege to have someone of your caliber and renown on the forum (as I consider it a privilege to interact with all musicians of my caliber or above). I think our fixation on the "industry" side of things, such as it is, isn't because of our preoccupation with success above music, but because it is a corollary to our music and our passion. The business of music and the craft itself are not mutually exclusive, and it seems rather odd that the practitioners of the art/craft (ostensibly the producers of the product) are at this point the ones getting the short end of the stick.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Originally posted by Ani:

quote: No one here hurt my feeliings.(After all, the royalty checks are made out to Me!!!!)

[John Sayers]

Well first of all I'd change my business model so that an artist doesn't HAVE to sell "millions" to turn a profit. The "million selling failure" should be extinct. If you sell (or could be expected to sell) a million records, or half a million for that matter, you should be considered a success and be able to have access to the best studios, the most talented engineers and producers etc. available. I mean really! Who here wouldn't be thrilled to make a record every year to two years in a great studio with a great team, for the next 20 years, and each time sell half a mil to a million copies to a dedicated audience who really gets and is moved by what you do? And why the hell can't this be profitable? Why is this level of sales suddenly relegated to "indie" status and a miniscule budget? Any additional "millions" should be considered gravy, manna from heaven, whatever.

I agree with you totaly on that one - if you want an example of it working just look at the Australian music industry - 1/2mil sales in my country would make you a superstar and you'd be heading off to the states to crack that market

 

cheers

john

[Mr.WOW]

I disagree with myself.

[Anifa]

Originally posted by Tedly Nightshade:

Originally posted by Ani:

quote: No one here hurt my feeliings.(After all, the royalty checks are made out to Me!!!!)

Ted,

 

You missed the pun..... royalty checks/counting...

 

Anyone that knows anything about me knows that money is far from being a priority in my musical endeavors. I have spent several thousand dollars (without exaggeration) in developing and hosting a website that caters to professional music and the Trade Industry without ever asking a dime in return from the masses of traffic it receives; probably my own stupidity in the opinion of some, but I do it for many other reasons than for profit.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by John Sayers:

I agree with you totaly on that one - if you want an example of it working just look at the Australian music industry - 1/2mil sales in my country would make you a superstar and you'd be heading off to the states to crack that market

Heh... yeah, and somehow with a "mere" half million sales I bet the artists and labels even make money, don't they? Like, quite a lot of money. How can this be?

[robmix]

Originally posted by Tedly Nightshade:

It's a deal Bruce! You make A BIG HIT RECORD! and I'll work on making the very best recordings of the very best music I can. Two ENTIRELY different projects!

Ahh, that's just it. Bruce manages to put true love and creativity into every project, never making a sacrifice for "marketing" or A&R idiots, and still makes big hit records. They don't have to be two entirely different projects. Why does everyone need to equate success or hits with selling out or sacrificing music for image. Strange.

[Anderton]

<>

 

But the reason why it resonates is because many other greats have fallen into some kind of trap. Show biz is dangerous for some people. Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Jimi Hendrix, Keith Moon, John Bonham, Elvis, Sly Stone, Chet Baker...I remember when Janice Joplin had just done this incredible set, and as she got offstage she asked "Was I any good?." She just didn't understand she had blown the place apart. Mike Bloomfield, Eric Clapton's close calls with drugs, etc. etc. There are waaay too many other examples.

 

What fame does to people is a separate topic that would go way OT in this context. Whether you like someone's music is primarily a matter of personal taste, but you don't have to like or dislike someone's music to recognize they have talent.

 

As to Bruce's comments in threads, it hardly matters whether you like Michael Jackson's music or not. I think anyone would have to admit that there's a lot that can be learned from those recordings. I had the good fortune to interview Quincy Jones once, and some of the things he said and techniques he mentioned have stuck with me to this day. Same with Bruce's comments here: some of them will stick with all of us, if for no other reason than because they got us thinking.

[Anderton]

<>

 

That's understood. I don't feel I'm defending the forumites, it's just that Bruce said at first glance this seemed like a decent bunch of folks, and as I've had a few more glances than he has, let him know y'all look pretty good on a second glance, as well...the kind of people whose heart would go out to someone having a hard time. I've seen that happen plenty with other people on the forum. That's all I was trying to express.

 

<>

 

I don't think that's the point. The point is, we have someone here who has accumulated a vast storehouse of knowledge and is more that willing, in fact eager, to share it. I'm interested in hearing what he has to say. I'd rather see him type 2000 words on a bunch of different things, then 100 words on one thing followed by 1900 words of going back and forth debating that single thing. I can make up my own mind about what I agree with, and what is applicable to what I do/who I am.

 

Now, if he turns into a regular here (heh...heh...does Bruce know this is highly addictive?), we could probably get into some more extended discussions. But he's a pretty busy guy, so I want to take advantage of his outputting while we can. Make sense?