Does it suck because it sells?

[Anderton]

Quick story...

 

The other day I was, as usual, rudely awakened by my clock radio letting me know it was time to drag my body out of bed and get my daughter off to school. As I lay semi-conscious, I heard this great vocal -- superb engineering, fine arrangement, great backup singers, mic technique to die for, etc. I had no idea who it was, but that single listen caused the song to stick in my head all day.

 

So later that evening I called up the radio station to ask what record was played at 6:37 AM. Turned out to be Celine Dion's "That's the Way It Is." Like many others, I presume, I got 100% overloaded by "My Heart Will Go On" from the Titanic flick, and never really bothered to listen to what she did. But even if you don't care for her style of music, I think anyone would have to acknowledge that "That's the Way it Is" is a superbly crafted song.

 

So does that make me uncool? I'll go even one step further: I actually LIKE the song and will likely buy whatever CD has it. Yes, this is the same guy who spends most of his time listening to hardcore techno and twisted hip-hop. Go figure. Maybe someone putting real emotion into a song has a certain kind of appeal........

[Guest]

Yeah, we certainly did get Celine OVERLOAD from Titanic.

 

Being a freak, I have this reactionary mechanism built into my brain that says exactly that, i.e. "it sucks if it's popular", but I certainly will confess to having some guilty pleasures also.

 

I love Dave Matthews "Under The Table And Dreaming" to death (I think that's what it's called, I don't own it yet). The drum sounds on it are fantastic, and I love Dave's quirky vocal style. His songwriting is catchy and at times inspired. He's managed to surround himself with an excellent rhythm section so the band grooves like a bastard despite the fact that Dave is a white guy! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

He really needs to feed his violinist however. He looks malnourished.

 

Peter Gabriel is definitely popular, but perhaps doesn't count since he distinguished himself as an artist as early as 3 decades ago. But I listen to every Gabriel release just to hear the thundering groove that Levin lays down. If you're a bass player and not listening to Levin, you're doing yourself a disservice.

 

So does it suck if it's popular? Probably but not necessarily. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Rich...

[Chip McDonald]

No.

 

There's some stuff that I personally think is great that sells: Sarah McLachlan for instance... Dave Matthews I've become a fan of. Soundgarden was great; Sting, Seal.

 

What I think does suck is the endless stream of alternative pop bands out now that concoct yet another I IV V varient that echoes the hook of another pop song. It's so bad now that kids I teach guitar to, are starting to recognize it right off, even if they haven't been playing more than a month. I think the line between "being influenced" and "trying to sound like/appeal to the same audience" as been drawn too close these days. Particularly with stuff where it would seem there's been a conscious effort to aim the music at a certain demographic, by echoing earlier hit songs - like what is being done in the pop-country realm, I would think it's almost embarrasing for some "artists". (yeah, I know, all the way to the bank...).

 

 

There is a male and female pop-country artist where this is going on heavily, and it does grate on my nerves to hear songs where the chorus is one step removed from "Eagles hit song #437" and the verse is "Elton John hit song #787", with a Beatles knock off intro..

One artist in particular - if you take the fiddle and 1-2 accented acoustic guitar off the recording it turns into the last release of a famous 80's metal band... it's so blatant I'm sure most every one here know's who I'm referencing, right? Stuff like that SUCKS.

 

Sting has sold a few records - doesn't suck. McLachlan - I can't believe she's mainstream now, wonderful. Seal. Dave Matthews. I didn't mind Nirvana, liked Soundgarden - weird stuff to hear on the radio. Things where you know the people involved would probably be doing music even now if they hadn't become successful. On the other hand,

I think most of what's on the radio are by what amounts to opportunists who couldn't care less what it is they're doing.

 

Or maybe not, I've gone beyond cynicism into comedicism at this point... It would seem that the Sheep Who Are the Public These Days only criteria is whether the production fits with what they hear on the radio, and that the structure is in keeping with the trend that is happening at the moment; almost as if the act of listening to music is to give approval to an invisible checklist of stylistic tests: "Does this have the proper angst?; does this have the prerequisite acceptable guitar sound?; does the singer display the proper devient attitude?" or some such. Not value as a whole, but whether it falls into acceptable parameters, plugging in the values.

[jfinevog]

Hi there are allot of people who do think that any thing being played and mass consumed is bad. And you always meet bands in the studio that like there little niche bands. but what I have to remind them of is the fact that if it werent for the big label mass consumed music out there you wouldnt be able to go to the record store and buy your fav inport record or ep or 8 track or what ever, cause there wouldn't be a record store if it weren't for the big sellers. or at least the record stores that would be around wouldn't be able to get the imports and the cool stuff you like cause the big sellers that keep the doors open wouldn't be there. and that even works on an indi leavel. arnt the big indi bands corporate? and the indi labels arnt they owned by big labels so the big indis are in fact just about as corporate as the big bands. sounds way out doesn't it but rally look at who owns what and its really clear.

 

I like some name brand bands and I like some no name bands seems to me that most bands don't like the name brand bands cause they think that music should be non corporate. should it be or not who knowes but the fact is that music is corporate for the most part and thats how it is. all the best jonathan

[Guest]

Perhaps the initial question can be re-phrased as, "If it's popular, is it art?" Once again we find ourselves faced with the terrible chore of defining art. My definition of art isn't as broad as some, or perhaps even as broad as most. And I don't buy the crap that hanging an empty, unpainted canvas in an art gallery makes it art.

 

A great philosopher once described art as the semantic difference between a game and a sport.

 

Give me a good band anyday. But if the band is a CONSTRUCT, you can keep it. N'Sync is a CONSTRUCT of pretty boys meant to attract 13 year old girls. Dave Matthews is not.

 

Rich...

[alphajerk]

yea, the constructs suck bad. i would go as far to say anyone who doesnt write their own songs, sucks. at least 99% of the time.

 

however, sting sucks. hes bought into the LCD america and his music sounds like it. i loved the police but damn... prime example. jimmy page, same thing. in fact if you work with puffy, you suck. talk about some of the worst hiphop released and thats really saying something.

 

and the I IV V thing. i was in a fast alternafunkadelic band, cranked some shit bad. like a 13 yo addicted to crack. but we would play these 3 hour shows and parts of the night when we didnt want to think for a moment, we broke into the 12 bar blues or a 145 jam. basically most rock songs for the past 20 years wrapped into this simple prograssion. the crowd loved it. stared blankly at our other stuff. why, because we overloaded them with something they had never heard anything closely resemble. the Lowest Common Denominator. mass population is pretty dumb.

 

so on to the last point, sometimes somebody does something really cool that the LCD picks up on and grows a little smarter. then a million copies of that come out from every label till it becomes so watered down again and tired. like right now. its been a decade since nirvana and nothing has come to blow the crap out, wheres the trashman???

[Anderton]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

we would play these 3 hour shows and parts of the night when we didnt want to think for a moment, we broke into the 12 bar blues or a 145 jam. basically most rock songs for the past 20 years wrapped into this simple prograssion. the crowd loved it. stared blankly at our other stuff. why, because we overloaded them with something they had never heard anything closely resemble.

 

I've had the experience many times of completing a project and people's favorite tune would be the one I just knocked off for the hell of it one night, as opposed to the carefully worked out one of which I was most proud. What people will pick up on is very unpredictable. I saw No Doubt on CNN and they seemed genuinely mystified that "Don't Think" had become such a huge hit. Gwen Stefani said something to the effect that "If we knew what made it a hit, we'd do it again." Sometimes it really does seem that for something to be a hit nowadays, it has to recall something -- it can't be something entirely new. The Celine Dion song I mentioned had nothing that couldn't have been done 20 years ago, for example; I just liked it because of the performance by all concerned. As to where the new stuff is, believe me, there's some great music going on overseas...but you'll never hear it here, because it will not appeal to the mass market, will not make money, and therefore will not be promoted. It seems unfortunate that record companies have gone to the same level as movie companies: the blockbuster mentality. I remember when selling 200,000 albums was enough to guarantee your contract would be renewed. Now it guarantees you'll be dropped from your contract! I still hope there is some way by which the internet will allow musicians to make a decent living, even if it's not a killing, by making a closer connection between music producer and music consumer. But it ain't there yet.

[alphajerk]

and thats back to your signal to noise comment. ultimately the big problem. not just with bands and the mp3 stuff but the whole net in general. aside from topic specific MB's the internet is pretty boring. i really only use it for email/MB's and the latest drivers.

 

however, maybe the stuff overseas thats not marketed can easily be found on the net. but here in america there are quite a few GOOD bands, some even signed that are rarely recognized. i have a theory it doesnt matter what band you market, if you keep putting in front of someones face it will sell. it just seems like whoever is screaming the loudest wins. its the radio mentality.

 

i like it when a good artist sells, it makes me feel like the fight is worth the struggle. assuming they remain a good artist. not like aerosmith releasing clone after clone. david bowie is just hip to whatever is down at the time of the album. a good artist to me is if the album is good ALL the way through. not just 1-5 songs that are cool. filler is for twinkies not CD's. i still like what the beastie boys are doing and they are pretty big. i also think clutch is as great as nirvana ever was but nobody knows who clutch is, maybe 200k of you.

 

but really music is only a byproduct of the human conscience, popluar music only shows how little our existence is thinking right now.

[ssmithmcf-gm.com]

Music is just another product.

 

Some of it is crap, and some of it isn't.

 

But hey, lets not dog on someone just because they sat down one day and thought " hey, if i get 5 cute guys, a couple catchy tunes, and a lightshow, I'll be rich!"

the fact is, that all those "sheep" have a right to listen to somthing that makes them feel good.

 

I grew up on a steady diet of punk and hard rock, and the first time I heard Lyle Lovett, i feel down. WOW incredible songs and great production, Celine Dions "Titanic " album, same thing.

 

Do I aspire to be either of these performers? no.

 

Would I work ith them? hell yeah.

 

 

 

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

Steve Smith

No, not the drummer

[songseeds]

Craig, you said:

 

I still hope there is some way by which the internet will allow musicians to make a decent living, even if it's not a killing, by making a closer connection between music producer and music consumer. But it ain't there yet.

 

I think that you're touching on the big missing ingredient. If you analyze what's happened:

 

 

[*]thanks to technology (recording, mastering, disc burning, etc.) the means of production has now filtered down to the "common citizen"

 

[*]thanks to technology (the net) the means of distribution has now become available to the "common citizen"

 

A new means of using technology (perhaps the net!?) to cause innovation in the area of Marketing & Promotion are what's missing!

 

I think these two functions are the only remaining things that the BIG record companies have that we common citizens are missing!

 

• 
   
  
• How do we get it?
   
  
• Is this all the further we can come without gobs of cash?
   
  
• Are those two functions incapable of being revolutionized?
  

 

 

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

richard

songseeds.com

 

[This message has been edited by songseeds (edited 05-09-2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by songseeds (edited 05-09-2000).]

[Anderton]

Originally posted by songseeds:

I think that you're touching on the big missing ingredient. If you analyze what's happened:

 

 

[*]thanks to technology (recording, mastering, disc burning, etc.) the means of production has now filtered down to the "common citizen"

 

[*]thanks to technology (the net) the means of distribution has now become available to the "common citizen"

 

A new means of using technology (perhaps the net!?) to cause innovation in the area of Marketing & Promotion are what's missing!

 

I think these two functions are the only remaining things that the BIG record companies have that we common citizens are missing

 

I think the biggest problem is that the net effectively means the end of the impulse item. You don't see something, pick it up, then buy it. You have to go through the whole secure transaction thing.

 

The main advantage I see to the net is that it is "the new single" -- a compromised fidelity medium to promote larger works. I just came back from Germany, where I spend way too much money on CDs because I can listen to them first. I take a bunch of CDs up to the counter, strap on headphones, and buy the ones I like. That's harder to do here, although some stores are accommodating.

 

The net can be the ultimate "try before you buy" option. The biggest problem is going to be filtering out the wheat from the chaff, which is complicated by everyone's opinion of wheat and chaff being different! If that happens to a major degree, then we're back to the record company model, where a limited number of people decide "What's good for you."

 

What I think is REALLY needed are niche, boutique-type sites. I don't care if a site has 400,000 MP3s available for download. I'd rather got to a site that specializes in a particular kind of music, and has 50 really good downloads. But then we're back to the "Who decides which are the 50 good downloads?" question.

 

I am seriously considering releasing my upcoming CD on the web before signing with a label just to see what happens.

[alphajerk]

the site i do www.alphajerk.com is of bands spanning the spectrum of music, sometimes working together. its more of a family than a "record label". its hard to specialize in music because interests never seems to adhere to any one thing. we give away the mp3's.

 

definately no impulse buy on the net so i think a new bar has been raised. now you must really do something for the consumer to lay down the cash. but a lot goes with the branding and merchandise that goes with it.

 

what about these internet radio stations? is anybody listening?

 

 

oh, and i dont care how good the production is, if i ever have to hear celene dion again ill just change the station. any of the "divas" for that matter. does anyone know if she wrote that finely crafted song or did she buy it?

 

[This message has been edited by alphajerk (edited 05-10-2000).]

[Guest]

As far as I know, it was written for the film and they asked her to sing it. She did NOT write it.

 

I think there already ARE plenty of boutique web sites out there specializing in many different kinds of music. But so what? How do people find them? Search engines work OK, but not always.

 

Are people listening to the web radio stations? I'm not. Although I was pleasantly surprised when I visited one and clicked on their "progressive" stream and the Dixie Dregs were playing.

 

As for DIVAS. I think the word DIVA is the most over-used word of the last 3 or so years. VH-1 has managed to kill a WORD for me.

 

Sure, put some chick on a VH-1 special and suddenly she's a Diva. Yeah.... right.

 

Rich...

[Chip McDonald]

>Jonathan Fluevog wrote:I

>have to remind them of is the fact that if >it werent for the big label mass consumed >music out there you wouldnt be able to go to

>the record store and buy your fav inport

>record or ep

 

????

 

The only record stores where I even bother to actually browse anymore are independents that wouldn't flinch if the major labels all shut down tomorrow. Places in Atlanta and Athens, like Wax N' Fax, Wuxtry, Papa Jazz in Columbia S.C. - all been around for years selling oddball imports and hard to find releases, along with used cd's. I don't think you'll find a new Britny Spears, Metallica or PUff Daddy cd in any of those places. On the contrary, go to your local Best Buy and try to find an import, or try to *order* and import... Impossible.

 

The music I like isn't found at Best Buy, WalMart, or Sam Goody. Their demise wouldn't bother me one bit. Those places have nothing to do with what a record store is about, and we'd be much better off if we *didn't* have the schlock marts being the prime motivator for a record label. If a tenth of the LCD crowd realized that there were these places called "independent record stores" around that carried a wealth of music they've not only not likely to have heard - but probably won't hear - it would turn the whole industry around.

 

The independent stores have struggled along for many years without support from major distribution outlets, proving there is a large audience for music that is *not* pumped out by the major labels. That these places are not known by the LCD hordes doesn't mean those people wouldn't like what's sold there. But if the major labels were gone you would still have these places, and it would be a great thing...

 

The "cool" stuff isn't supported by the majors.

 

 

>works on an indi leavel. arnt the big indi >bands corporate? and the

 

Hmph. The majors have managed to cleverly co-opt the perception of "indy" music by selectively signing certain groups and buying certain labels, but that doesn't mean there isn't still real independent music or labels.

It just means they're still below the radar.

 

>owned by big labels so the big indis are in

 

*Some* are now, but they didn't *start* that way, and that's important. Subpop wasn't a major when Soundgarden and Nirvana was first happening. The major labels would like public perception to be that there are all of these pseudo-cutting edge bands coming out, and that you're cool to purchase them, but it's just a charade. Plus, it looks to me like the new gimmick they're pulling is to have all of these little pseudo-"indy" labels sitting around, so they can divest them into nothingness and cut any loss while the artist picks up the tab - while not getting any benefit.

 

>brand bands cause they think that music >should be non corporate.

 

Support your local independent record dealer and don't buy major label releases then.

 

>corporate for the most part and

> thats how it is.

 

NO IT'S NOT! Most music *isn't* corporate! It's just not as high profile. Just because you don't see it at Best Buy doesn't mean it's not out there and viable. That's a perception the majors would like everyone to believe: that what they shill out is all there is. Not true.

[alphajerk]

music is just bland right now. a sea of vanilla.

 

but underground it's still bubbling.

[Anderton]

The music I like isn't found at Best Buy, WalMart, or Sam Goody. Their

demise wouldn't bother me one bit. Those places have nothing to do with

what a record store is about, and we'd be much better off if we *didn't*

have the schlock marts being the prime motivator for a record label. If

a tenth of the LCD crowd realized that there were these places called

"independent record stores" around that carried a wealth of music

they've not only not likely to have heard - but probably won't hear - it

would turn the whole industry around.

 

But here's the really tragic thing that few people know: remember when the industry went to the SoundScan system to determine sales + chart positions? SoundScan samples ONLY those LCD stores. Period. No one else. No mom and pop stores. So even if someone had an independent hit through mom and pop stores, it would never even register on the "charts."

 

BTW Internet radio is very cool. Now if I only had a T1 line, I could take advantage of it.

[alphajerk]

yea, try it on a 28.8 connection. living in the sticks has it s advantages and disadvantages.

 

i however do find a bit at best buys and their prices are so cheap. i dont listen to mass marketd music but i do find stuff you dont think you'd find normally. tower on the other hand is expensive.

[Chip McDonald]

>Anderton wrote:industry went to

>the SoundScan system to determine sales + >chart positions? SoundScan samples ONLY

> those LCD stores. Period.

 

This is a tribute to the idiocy of American Society in the First Half of the 21st Century. Statistics can't show trends in taste! The bozos that care about things like SoundScan are who are *really* hurting the labels!

 

For instance, there's a whole generation that grew up on the metal scene in the 80's. The metal scene that sold a ton of records. Sure, a lot now listen to other things; but if the labels had half a brain, they would look at the 28-35 year old demographic as a source of revenue they've not tapped. That age group doesn't show up in "modern" record sales; they don't want to buy what's being pushed today - but that doesn't mean they don't want to buy music! There's a big cross section of kids that listen to skate music (a concept the major labels obviously don't understand), and death metal; they buy ALOT of music, but independent and obscure things. The major labels ignore them completely. It's hilarious. The labels shouldn't be complaining about anything: they completely incompetant at doing what they think they're doing: selling music.

 

Time to bring up good 'ol Nirvana again. That almost didn't happen. The underground popularity of Nirvana was no different than what was around for other bands that the labels never got behind. Husker Du, for example. Idiots! They could double their sales so easily if they would get their act together. The labels have one foot in the past, thinking they're really selling "the best music out there", while having another foot in a pond called "corporate product based on demographic research".

 

Again - Napster is the best trend indicator they could possibly have, and they don't even realize it. Nor do they realize the futility of trying to stop it, or how much they're making it worse by making it that much higher profile. I've heard a number of people just this past week who are now deciding to sign up for a cable modem so they can take advantage. People who otherwise wouldn't have known about it, or more importantly - would have thought the technology too intimidating for them to use. Thanks to the media and the major labels, that stigma is all gone.

 

There's an interesting article from a non-industry pundit in the back of the latest issue of Info World... people should read it for a reality check. People who don't have a direct interest in the business see things entirely differently. Regardless of accuracy of this perception or the morality of it, it's there and the industry should take heed.

 

 

No one else. No mom and pop stores. So even if someone had an

independent hit through mom and pop stores, it would never even register on the "charts."

 

BTW Internet radio is very cool. Now if I only had a T1 line, I could take advantage of it.

[jfinevog]

I guess what I was really getting at are the bands that don't think that there cd's are a product. If you sell cds you sell a product, if you sell tickets to your showes you are selling a product. And just to let you know I don't support alot of the big label stuff my fav label is touch & go and really more power to thoes who can do it wiht out the big label backing.

[Ken Favata]

I'd like to take us back to the comment from songseeds. The missing element in the hands of the masses is marketing/promotion. The dilemma is that, just as affordable audio technology and the web have made production & distribution available to the masses the number of potential suppliers of music skyrockets. So, this same aspect of the democratization of production & distribution" results in an oversupply that makes it much harder to rise above the clutter and be noticed. The law of supply and demand will always apply. It seems to me that the end result is many many artists playing to smaller and smaller audiences.

 

In a seperate universe the commmercial big hits will still exist. Why - because an element of this product ( independant of whether the music is any good or not) is its mass appeal - its glamour - its "biggest show on earth" appeal.

 

Never the twain shall meet - perhaps.

[Anderton]

Originally posted by Ken Favata:

I'd like to take us back to the comment from songseeds. The missing element in the hands of the masses is marketing/promotion. The dilemma is that, just as affordable audio technology and the web have made production & distribution available to the masses the number of potential suppliers of music skyrockets. So, this same aspect of the democratization of production & distribution results in an oversupply that makes it much harder to rise above the clutter and be noticed. The law of supply and demand will always apply. It seems to me that the end result is many many artists playing to smaller and smaller audiences.

 

 

Interesting comment, because you're basically describing a classic example of deflation, where prices go down due to oversupply. Maybe that's exactly what's happening -- it's like if everyone found oil in their backyard, the price of gas would plummet, right?

 

Now let's take this one step further. You mention that superior promotion is needed to get noticed above the noise. Yet if it's true that music as a whole is being devalued, then even if you rise about the noise, you may still have a hard time being compensated (the "napster effect"). Hopefully "good" music will always be valued and may be free from the effects of "musical deflation," but then we get back to your original question: how will this music be noticed? And furthermore, a lot of the better music takes time to "grow" on you. Will the luxury of letting music "grow" on you become passe, to be replaced by quick fixes and instantly hummable melodies? That may be what's happening now, in some respects.

[alphajerk]

there is no law of supply and demand since supply is now infinite. nor do i think music is devalued because everyone does it. in fact i think the opposite. music now has more value because more people are making it. if more people are into music, then more people will attend concerts (where bands make the most money) and that cant really be replaced or downloaded or deflated. thats your seperate universe. grateful dead is a prime example of this philosophy, dave matthews owes to this. both those artists encourage taping and trading of their music. the napster effect on this phenonemon is insane. i "shared" tracks of my bands using napster. [views on mp3 and its relative quality to cassette tape apply] now everyone who DL's now shares it with other people and so on. it GROWS like a virus. the more results in the searches after people DL encourage more DL's... the one person tells two people log.

 

i think the real ??? is does it sell because it sucks. after all the difference between HITS and SHIT is only the order.

[JES]

I'm with Alphajerk on this: we should WANT a world in which more people are making music and more people have access to the music being made.

 

When people make music, they're generally more invested in listening as well.

 

--JES

[Anderton]

Originally posted by JES:

I'm with Alphajerk on this: we should WANT a world in which more people are making music and more people have access to the music being made.

 

When people make music, they're generally more invested in listening as well.

 

--JES

 

No argument there. But the discussion is about commercial impact, right? In other words, yes, it's great that more people are making music, and that it can be more easily accessed. But the hook for a lot of these internet sites is "Sell your CDs through our sites." I think simple mathematics indicates that if the choice of music becomes exponentially broader, unless people's disposable income for music also increases exponentially, it's going to be really hard for people to sell decent quantities of CDs from internet sites. I've already heard stories about bands that have tens of thousands of downloads but have sold only a handful of CDs -- does that mean the music was bad, and people only realized it after downloading, or that the downloading replaced the act of purchasing? I don't have any answers here, I'm just asking questions....

[alphajerk]

it feels temporary sitting on your HD. no cool cd case to look at. i dont want order a cd filled with mp3's. they sound like shit. streaming over the internet coming through my $5 speakers its fine. when i play it on a real system, it is only using $200 of my $2000 speakers. besides, hard drive fail. what happens then, do you get a free DL or do you have to pay again?

 

personally we try to offer complete albums, not 3 songs plus filler. course it could be all filler, what do i know???

 

thats why i think music is so shitty these days. sorry if this might offend anyone here but the first artist to get a record deal from mp3 is some girl name 'fisher'. it sucks, another chick with her top unbuttoned singing over drum and bass. WTF, do we need another one? i thought opening the floodgates would bring such new creativity and experimentalism (which i have heard from some) the blatent mindlessness of society is at a head, continue down the road to the gap generation or WAKE THE HELL UP! zombies i say. like cows being led to the slaughterhouse, they dont have a clue. but what can you do?

[Chip McDonald]

>thought opening the floodgates would bring >such new creativity and experimentalism

 

It has, it's just that it doesn't matter if the bean counters continue with the current ethic of pushing what they think appeals to a predefined demographic.

 

I was about to write a diatribe about the contrast of the earlier periods of the recording industry to now, but....

 

The bottom line is that insanity rules our society now. No one is deluding themselves in the upper echelons of the business that they're siging the best music they can find. No one really thinks they're looking for a *talent* comparable to the Beatles - but a *product* that can be marketed like the Beatles. Are you *really* surprised nothing great has come of the MP3 revolution?

 

Instead of veiwing the whole thing as a resource for finding "The Next Great Thing" they're viewing it as a threat. Which is interesting, because I think the sheer numbers involved in being on the Net now makes it possible that the Next Big Thing *does* actually come off the Net. Possibly without assistance from "conventional" channels. A new paradigm. It could happen in a very sideways manner that isn't obvious right now but will probably have everyone in

the industry slapping their foreheads...

[songseeds]

This is a great thread. I'm lovin' the discussion our little "tribe" here is having!

 

Ken Favata said:

 

I'd like to take us back to the comment from songseeds. The missing element in the hands of the masses is marketing/promotion. The dilemma is that, just as affordable audio technology and the web have made production & distribution available to the masses the number of potential suppliers of music skyrockets. So, this same aspect of the democratization of production & distribution" results in an oversupply that makes it much harder to rise above the clutter and be noticed. The law of supply and demand will always apply. It seems to me that the end result is many many artists playing to smaller and smaller audiences.

 

Yes, and it's that oversupply that caused me to ask the questions:

 

Is this all the further we can come without gobs of cash?

 

To "cause a stir" about an artist certainly takes a certain amount of cash; probably the more the better up to a certain point of diminishing returns! This could be BIG music industry's ace in the hole. They can make a buzz happen that the "common citizen" can't just by throwing money at it.

 

If there are low or no cost ways of getting the word out about an artist, well, everyone would do it and then we'd all be completely saturated with "LISTEN TO THIS" messages and once again the noise would exceed the signal!!!

 

Anderton then responded to Ken:

 

Interesting comment, because you're basically describing a classic example of deflation, where prices go down due to oversupply. Maybe that's exactly what's happening -- it's like if everyone found oil in their backyard, the price of gas would plummet, right?

 

As far as performance goes, that's exactly what I would like to see at the highest levels. Unlike oil, we've got a situation with our commodity (music) where a small percentage rakes in the megabucks and a majority lives a life of welfare. That really bugs me.

 

Several posters talked about there being POSITIVE effects to a world with MORE music makers.

 

alphajerk said:

 

music now has more value because more people are making it. if more people are into music, then more people will attend concerts (where bands make the most money) and that cant really be replaced or downloaded or deflated

 

JES said:

 

we should WANT a world in which more people are making music and more people have access to the music being made

 

...but again, the question of HOW an artist can rise about the noise without gobs of promotional cash arises!

 

Anderton:

 

yes, it's great that more people are making music, and that it can be more easily accessed. But the hook for a lot of these internet sites is "Sell your CDs through our sites."

 

Also, I think Chip McDonald made an insightful point that strikes at the heart of everyone dreaming about success without BIG industry backing:

 

I think the sheer numbers involved in being on the Net now makes it possible that the Next Big Thing *does* actually come off the Net. Possibly without assistance from "conventional" channels. A new paradigm. It could happen in a very sideways manner that isn't obvious right now but will probably have everyone in the industry slapping their foreheads...

 

Question is: WHAT is that sideways manner? Right now, we'd all be slapping our foreheads too if (when) that happens.

 

Just to fantasize a bit, I'd like to see a world where there are MORE mid-level opportunities for musicians (let's have more mid-sized CONCERT venues - less stinking beer joints; less mega-arena crap). Let's have those mid-sized venues designed to actually be suited for music (great acoustics, great stage). Yes, there are some very good examples of places like this out there already.

 

More importantly, let's celebrate the concept of the career of mid-level artists. Does the goal of everyone have to be big, bigger, biggest??

 

Do you "feel" more respect and admiration for BIGGER stars? If so, ask yourself why! I'll bet the odds are that it's not really because you necessarily PREFER their music to some others. It's because we've been enculturated to revere the BIGGEST!!! I say, we can change how we've been brainwashed just by adopting a new attitude.

 

Stop going to arenas. Go to more small venues. SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL MUSICIAN! For every big ticket arena show you go to, you can probably go to 2 or 3 mid-sized shows and often have a better musical experience.

 

And finally, I'm still wondering if recording artist success (i.e. recorded music sales) has gone as far as it can without serious promotional money!!!

 

back at 'ya, my frustrated musical community of friends...

 

 

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

richard

songseeds.com

 

[This message has been edited by songseeds (edited 05-19-2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by songseeds (edited 05-19-2000).]

[alphajerk]

hell, the big sized arena tickets are out the roof, $55+++ for a stones ticket? no thank you.

 

for the most part, what you say is already happening. midsized clubs are the norm for most acts now. arenas are not. small beer stinking clubs is where the real music is @.

 

there are NO superstars i admire right now. most are greedy bastards (metallica) or washed up hasbeens (stones). all the big album sellers are total crap music.

 

what to do...

[Anderton]

Then there's the matter of why we make music. If we make it just to please ourselves, then whether people respond to it or not depends on many factors. If on the other hand we do it as a living, then we have to create something that people want to buy. As Nat King Cole once said, he was a businessman.

 

Sometimes, we get really lucky, and what pleases ourselves also creates something that other people want to buy. This is when doing music is really rewarding.

 

But does one need commercial success at any level to validate one's muse? I don't think so. It would be nice to get paid, though .

[Anderton]

Here's a great quote that passed across my desk, courtesy of Keyboard columnist Jeff Rona...kind of encapsulates what this topic is all about, eh?

 

"I would rather play Chiquita Banana and have my swimming pool than

play Bach and starve."

 

- Xavier Cugat