Jump to content


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

Reviewer gripe


Synthguy

Recommended Posts

Jim Aikin revewed Jordan Rudess' new album Feeding the Wheel in the November Keyboard, and had this to say:

 

"This kind of thing comes across today as pompous and badly dated."

 

He does backtrack from that, barely, but is anyone else tired of this sort of thing? If Jim Aikin hates prog rock so much, why is he reviewing an album which is a vanguard recording of nearly incomparable musicianship? Should we all just be doing three chord variations of Louie Louie, or Nine Inch Nails to please these guys? I swear sometimes I think Jim wants to sleep with Trent!

 

Maybe the name of the mag should be changed back to Contemporary Keyboard. Or maybe something more fitting like Shredd Yer Hedd or Wup@ss. What's everyone think? Are keyboards and real players on the way out? :P

This keyboard solo has obviously been tampered with!
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just remember that early 70s reviews of ELP & Yes generally said something like "pompous and bombastic". Critics have never liked progrock. They never will! Fortunately, there are audiences who do like progrock.

 

 

Originally posted by synthguy:

Jim Aikin revewed Jordan Rudess' new album Feeding the Wheel in the November Keyboard, and had this to say:

 

"This kind of thing comes across today as pompous and badly dated."

 

He does backtrack from that, barely, but is anyone else tired of this sort of thing? If Jim Aikin hates prog rock so much, why is he reviewing an album which is a vanguard recording of nearly incomparable musicianship? Should we all just be doing three chord variations of Louie Louie, or Nine Inch Nails to please these guys? I swear sometimes I think Jim wants to sleep with Trent!

 

Maybe the name of the mag should be changed back to Contemporary Keyboard. Or maybe something more fitting like Shredd Yer Hedd or Wup@ss. What's everyone think? Are keyboards and real players on the way out? :P

I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist.

 

This ain't no track meet; this is football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad someone else noticed that comment. I had been pondering writing Keyboard about Aikin's review myself. I definitely don't think that music reviews should be pandering or uncritical. But I do think that the reviewer who undertakes to review a work of music ought to at least be someone with some appreciation of the genre that the music being reviewed is an example of, or at very least without a gross bias against that genre. If a reviewer's knee jerk reaction to a particular segment of the musical spectrum is "all that stuff is a bunch of crap and should have been left behind along with the 70's" (which is what Aikin's review of Rudess' album boils down to, faint praise here and there notwithstanding), why doesn't that person excuse himself from reviewing the album and say, you know, I really don't have an appreciation for that kind of stuff, maybe I'm not the best person to do this review?

 

Aikin ought to stick to reviewing the electronica and other music he knows and likes, and can thus critique intelligently as a good or bad example of its own genre(s), and leave the prog rock reviews to someone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by chris c:

I definitely don't think that music reviews should be pandering or uncritical. But I do think that the reviewer who undertakes to review a work of music ought to at least be someone with some appreciation of the genre that the music being reviewed is an example of, or at very least without a gross bias against that genre.

 

Aikin ought to stick to reviewing the electronica and other music he knows and likes, and can thus critique intelligently as a good or bad example of its own genre(s), and leave the prog rock reviews to someone else.

 

Part of being a reviewer is not only judging a work within the limited context of its style or form, but the greater context of music as a whole, and Jim did just that when he said:

 

"This kind of thing comes across today as pompous and badly dated."

 

The key words are across today. This means he was looking at the work in the context of the musical zeitgeist...and in that context, he felt such a work came across as pompous and badly dated!

 

Originally posted by synthguy:

If Jim Aikin hates prog rock so much, why is he reviewing an album which is a vanguard recording of nearly incomparable musicianship? Should we all just be doing three chord variations of Louie Louie, or Nine Inch Nails to please these guys?

 

Is that the sum total of what makes music good - incomparable musicianship? That is the kind of myopia that reduces music from a glorious expression of the human spirit to nothing more than wankery. I appreciate a gifted player, but when that is the sum total of the content, and the music does not address the larger context, it fails artistically and musically.

Go tell someone you love that you love them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Counterpoint:

 

The job of reviewing music has to be one of the shittiest gigs I could possibly imagine.

 

Thnk about it. It's bad enough to write reviews of music and audio products that can be heavily based on subjective aspects. If a guy doesn't like the piano sound of a synth, does that mean that you aren't allowed to like it? Of course not. For people that don't trust their ears, or feel that they're too inexperienced to have a valid opinion, I suppose this type of thing can help. For the rest, though, you should pretty much discount anything you read in that vein.

 

But review music? My god, man, I'd rather crawl through shards of broken glass. Here's why: in one school of thought, there is never, ever a right or wrong in a song. You can get an equally valid review of any song by walking up to someone on a street corner.

 

When Jim states that the genre of music that Jordan plays comes across today as pomous and badly dated, this is about as fact-oriented as a reviewer can be. If Jim had all the space in the world to write, he might have said this:

 

"As always, Rudess' pyrotechnic performance chops are on par with any of the great synthesizer players in history. Unfortunately, his style seems pompous and badly dated in comparison to other offerings in today's crop of technically-oriented music."

 

Or he might have said that he hated it and it sucked. Whatever. In any case, bringing up the fact that the genre is dated is a valid opinion. Look, I know what your complaint is here, and I'm a prog fan too. However, unless the entire review catagory is based on "Music for Musicians", then Jim's reasoning for bringing this up is acceptable to me. It's the reason you won't hear Jordan Rudess on your local pop station, alt rock channel or MTV. And I believe that Jordan knows this to be true, and consciously makes an effort to stick to the genre he appreciates the most, with the full knowledge that most reviewers are apt to point this out.

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what Jim means by "pompous and badly dated" regarding progrock. As much as I liked listening to "Close to the Edge", Brain Salad Surgery" or "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" way back, that style just sounds like something from 25-30 years ago. To emulate that style now is like living in the past, IMO. Personally, I prefer many of the post-rock bands such as Stereolab, for example. There's a diversity and intricacy to their music that is what I think is a modern evolution of progrock, without the pomposity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by php:

I know what Jim means by "pompous and badly dated" regarding progrock. As much as I liked listening to "Close to the Edge", Brain Salad Surgery" or "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" way back, that style just sounds like something from 25-30 years ago. To emulate that style now is like living in the past, IMO. Personally, I prefer many of the post-rock bands such as Stereolab, for example. There's a diversity and intricacy to their music that is what I think is a modern evolution of progrock, without the pomposity.

 

 

Yeah, I can think of some other bands that have inherited some measure of the intricacy and detail of prog but left behind the epic intent, the robes and fog, and the 11.5/13.7 time signatures. XTC comes to mind.

 

Also, with no offense to anyone's taste (I am afterall a prog baby myself) "incomparable musicianship" is highly subjective, unless one defines musicianship as speed and dexterity alone. Even there, I hear more relevant technique in John Scofield's subtle squeaks than in, say, 50 shredding Yngwies. To my ears, a lot of prog players lack the subtlety and swing that I would consider incomparable musicianship. There are, of course, exceptions, and I don't know the Dream Theater cats well enough to even state an opinion.

Check out the Sweet Clementines CD at bandcamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> If Jim Aikin hates prog rock so much, why is he

> reviewing an album which is a vanguard recording of nearly

> incomparable musicianship? Should we all just be doing three

> chord variations of Louie Louie, or Nine Inch Nails to

> please these guys? I swear sometimes I think Jim wants

> to sleep with Trent!

 

...well, maybe with Tori...

 

Look -- if you love prog rock, go for it! In fact, write me a damn review. We pay a hefty $25 if we buy it. All you have to do is study the format of our reviews and write me a tightly constructed four-sentence gem that (a) explains what's on the CD musically, (b) if possible provides a bit of context, © gives all the relevant information about players, label, etc., and (d) is fun to read (e) without floundering in cliches. (And don't bother reviewing Jordan's album again, because I can't buy that review. Review something new.)

 

The fact remains: When an artist releases a work to the public, said artist has to be able to take the heat, in print, from people who are unimpressed by one or another aspect of the work. I review classical music, experimental/avant-garde, mainstream jazz, new age, synth-pop, fusion, prog, goth/industrial, and everything in between. If you think my value system is too narrow, the most likely reason is because _yours_ is too narrow.

 

Yes, I have my favorite genres, and maybe I'm not as fair to fusion, new age, free jazz, and prog as to some other styles. But let's face it: An artist's choice of style/genre is simply one of the aesthetic choices the artist makes. It's a higher-level choice than "what chord should I put here?", but it's still a choice. As such, it's open to criticism. Musical styles don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in what one might call a universe of discourse. Society as a whole weighs in on these questions -- what's cool, and what's for fools? If you want to read reviews that are free of high-level value judgments, or reviews in which the high-level value judgments always accord with your own, all I can say is, good luck finding them.

 

Also, with respect to whether you should be playing "Louie, Louie" to please me, (a) if you think you could do something fresh with it, by all means give it a try, and (b) whatever makes you think your goal as a musician is to please reviewers?

 

--JA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love prog rock. I love Jordan's playing, and I love Dream Theater's playing. Jordan is a wizard on his Kurzweil. I don't think I know anyone else who's taken their synths to the potential that he has. He's also one of the most amazing players I know. I haven't been able to stop listening to Feeding the Wheel since he sent it to me (yes, Jordan sent me a free copy himself). The entire album is just so wow.

I see too many people critizing prog as being outdated, emotionless, or too technical. For being outdated, I sure do know a hell of a lot of people that are still listening to it. Just because it doesn't make TRL doesn't mean that it's not being played. For being emotionless, I'm not seeing it. I get lots of emotion from listening to it, more than just the obvious "wow, how'd he do that", although I admit that is part of it too. As for being too technical, that's like saying there's too many synthesizers in electronica music or that there are too many string players in an orchestra. Just like those genres, that's how it's supposed to sound. No offense to Jim here, but I believe that if you're gonna review an album, it should be about how the album sounds, not how it compares to the rest of the musical world. If it's prog, does it sound prog? If it's electronica, does it do a good job of sounding like it, or is it just some sounds over the same drum loop? Does the album sound as good as you think it was intended to? That's what I think anyway. I could never be a reviewer. *lol*

Brett G.

Hall Piano Company, Inc.

Metairie, Louisiana

Kurzweil Keyboard Dept. Manager

 

"My dream is to have sex in odd time signatures." - J. Rudess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The role of the critic has been a point of contention since Plato and the ancient Greeks (well, at least that long), so we're not going to clear it up here. Even though I was at one time fairly well versed in the 20th cent. schools that attempt to redfeine the role of criticism (deconstruction, post-structuralism, semiology, etc.), my heart still warms to the old school well-defended value judgement. I like a review by someone with open ears, a broad frame of reference, a willingness to be moved and a commensurate willingness to flame when so inclined, and a flair for language. The review is not the music and never will be. In this parasitic relationship, it is clear who feeds on whom. The review is it's own entity (which is why I can so enjoy some reviewers while disagreeing with everything they say).

 

If, like the writers at Spin, the reviewer sees his/her job as one of exploring the implicit and explicit "reference game" and the "play of signs" in a "cultural artifact," and the "rules of discource" in a certain genre, well, so be it. If you've read Spin, it seems like those writers attended half a lecture on (or by!) Jacques Derrida and then built a career on it. Yuch.

 

So I guess the point is don't let it piss you off. If you think Jim's review was designed to piss off Prog fans and his opinion decided in advance, don't give him the satisfaction. You guys can argue capably enough on behalf of the beauty and merit of Rudess' music. Ah, hell, I don't even know what I'm on about. I gotta go pick up my son. It's all good, or it's not, but it's fruitless to argue about it.

 

Fruitless but fun.

 

John

Check out the Sweet Clementines CD at bandcamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the review in question and I've never heard Jordan Rudess' music, so I can't comment specifically on the topic. That being said, if there is a magazine that should have a bias for, instead of against, styles like progressive rock and jazz fusion, it should be a magazine that caters to musicians.

 

Yes, these styles are dated; but that sort of thing didn't stop the swing movement from happening in the eighties or again a few years ago. Retro movements are constantly happening. If it's okay for Elvis Costello and Lenny Kravitz to be stuck in other eras, why isn't it okay for progressive rock bands? Could it be because it's never been okay with the vast majority of critics for progressive rock to ever exist at all?

 

I'm old enough to remember how Rolling Stone magazine critics did everything within their power in the seventies to wipe out progressive rock and nurture punk. I wish I had access to it now, so that I could post a direct quote; but I once read in a Rolling Stone publication the opinion that progressive rock was the antithesis of rock 'n roll because it was grounded (in their opinion) in the sensibilities and snobbery of classical music, which rock rebelled against when it came out in the fifties. They went on to say that it was the duty, therefore, of any rock critic to wage war against this awful genre!

 

The irony of this that Rolling Stone critics failed to see is that the musical vocabulary of progressive rock bands is analogous to a journalist's ability with words. I can't imagine that a typical reader could get through a single issue of Rolling Stone without consulting a dictionary at least several times. Yet, when a progressive rock band uses a complex chord or meter, it is called "wretched excess" (a phrase used by Rolling Stone in a review of a Yes album). This seems like a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!

 

It is sad that we lovers of progressive rock and jazz fusion have had no allies, that I know of, in the press. If we had, perhaps those forms of music could have continued to evolve. Instead, they are mostly a distant memory.

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progressive music fans have always had to endure more criticism than just about any other genre. I learned a long time ago to follow my own tastes and don't worry about the unwashed masses opinion on art or music. I don't like to analyse music much.....if a piece of music makes it through my critical filter, then it's good.

 

I do wonder if many progressive or art rock bands will make it into the Rock and Roll Hall of Shame...er, I mean Fame. Genesis, Yes, Jethro Tull, Rush ? I know Pink Floyd is in and the Moody Blues will be in if they aren't already. I think it's a tragic oversight if more don't get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've wondered before at the editors' choice to include reviews in Keyboard. The subscribers of keyboard are joined together by their interest in that class of instruments, not their musical tastes. I don't know why they expect to have success with that section. I notice that they've kept it small. I think they should cut it all together.

 

Critics are not the enemy of art, Magpel, far from it. A well known critic can make an artist's career with a stellar review. The entertainment business is well aware of this, too. Why do think they provide pre-screenings and pre-release copies? Sure, every once and a while you'll hear someone casting aspersions on a critic's qualifications, but not if that critic has just written a favorable review of that person's work.

 

The truth is that there is no objective measure of any art. It's a matter of taste, and it's fruitless to dispute individual taste. Besides, the opinion of certain egotistical reviewers notwithstanding (no, I'm not talking about Aikin), that's not a critic's function anyway.

 

A critic becomes popular because of his ability to identify art that his readers enjoy. That's all. The more average his tastes the bigger his audience. The readership grows to trust the critic not to lead them astray, so that their hard earned CD or ticket buying dollars aren't wasted. In a sense, the critic is an agent for the art consumer.

 

If you're lucky enough to find one you can trust, read his reviews religiously. Gene Siskel's opinions on films agreed with mine almost all the time. Since his death, I have had to endure some God-awful films that I'm sure he would have steered me away from. I miss the guy.

 

The other critics? Ignore them. They're not going to agree with you, so why bother? They don't care what you think. ;)

 

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Postman ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jim Aikin:

whatever makes you think your goal as a musician is to please reviewers?

 

Well said, my friend. Being a music reviewer is literally dangerous; someone once walked up to Robert Hilburn in the L.A. Times office and hit him in the face for something he wrote about this person's favorite artist.

 

My point was (and is) that Jordan does the type of music he does because he likes it, not because he expects rave reviews. If Jim were reviewing it from a technique-only perspective, it would probably have a different context. But Jim is looking at it like any other commercial release from 2001, and gave it a viewpoint based on that criteria. It stands up.

 

- Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to play devil's advocate here Jim....

 

have you EVER begun a review of someone's performance of Mozart by mentioning that "this music sounds 300 years dated. And that whole symphonic thing is a bit pompous"

 

Even folks who *today* write in the symphonic orchestral vein don't get that treatment. Their work may get blasted based on many qualities, but not on the fact that the style they choose originated 300 years ago.

 

Sorry Jim, I don't buy your explanation. PEACE

 

Originally posted by Jim Aikin:

Yes, I have my favorite genres, and maybe I'm not as fair to fusion, new age, free jazz, and prog as to some other styles. But let's face it: An artist's choice of style/genre is simply one of the aesthetic choices the artist makes. It's a higher-level choice than "what chord should I put here?", but it's still a choice. As such, it's open to criticism.

--JA

I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist.

 

This ain't no track meet; this is football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Aikin, I just want to add that I really enjoy your gear reviews. I just don't read your music reviews, nor anyone's music reviews anymore. Gear is really the only thing that excites me these days the way progressive rock and jazz fusion used to. I guess that's because, since those styles waned, the only aspect of music that continues to evolve is timbre. The main way we create new timbres is with new gear (although an important secondary effect of new gear is the ability to create music with a mechanical precision previously unknown).

 

I know that criticism is often a thankless and underpaid job. I wouldn't take the comments in this thread personally. You just touched a nerve, that's all. Look at it from our perspective: we love a form of music that, at its peak, merely achieved cult status. Then, in our view, it suffered a premature death. We rarely, if ever, get a chance to hear something new in this genre we love so much. When we do, invariably critics write scathing reviews.

 

If this were a healthy genre, like country music, this sort of thing would be seen as merely voicing one's opinion. However, in this case, it feels a lot like kicking someone when they're down. We're just touchy, that's all. I hope you understand.

 

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: soapbox ]

Enthusiasm powers the world.

 

Craig Anderton's Archiving Article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's so bad about negative reviews? As a musician, I'd much rather receive a negative review of my work than a lukewarm "this is OK but nothing special" affirmation.

 

I'm *proud* of the fact that I've played on records that have been slagged by publications as diverse as MaximumRockAndRoll (hardcore/punk) and Future Music (techno) - not the same record, obviously. Of course, maybe I wouldn't be so pleased with the negative reviews if there weren't plenty of positive reviews (of those records, and others I've played on) in publications I DO have respect for to offset the negative ones.

 

But I have little patience/respect for reviewers who will slam an album *specifically for* being a prog album, or a punk album, or a free jazz album, or a Mongolian-yak-calls album or whatever, rather than explaining *why* the album is a good (or NOT a good) prog/punk/free jazz/Mongolian-yak-calls/whatever album. Unless, say, a band is stupid enough to send their 25-minute magnum opus with 19 different time signatures and extensive use of F#msus13 chords in it to a punk-oriented 'zine, or stupid enough to send their 20-minute album with 30 songs, all using the same three chords, to a prog 'zine, or stupid enough to send their album of Mongolian-yak-calls to 'Peruvian Llama Fanciers' magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I write in support of both Jim and Jordan.

 

Fact is, high culture and pop culture have always been at war or at best in a shaky ceasefire. Prog gets caught in the middle because of it's aspirations toward art and it's roots in popular culture.

 

It is not possible to lead one culture toward another without being attacked. There is no culturally relevant path between pop music and classical music, except the "music of musicians for musicians" path.

 

Of course pop culture is armed with words for that path: "self-indulgent, socially irrelevant, etc.".

 

I find it ironic that pop culture is itself in danger of being co-opted and made irrelevant, by commercial interests. I do think a new ethic will emerge out of the clash of the forces of commercialization, global reach and access to the means of production. That ethic may support more 'musician friendly' music. As a musician I would certainly hope so, but the cards are stacked against it:

 

Artistic complexity flourishes where power and knowledge concentrate. A straight line extension from today's facts would suggest that on the contrary... power and knowledge will be more widely dispersed in the future.

 

This suggests that prog music will be forever a fringe movement, but increasingly able to support itself commercially... a kind of ugly duckling.

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tusker:

I find it ironic that pop culture is itself in danger of being co-opted and made irrelevant, by commercial interests.

 

Nonsense. Commercial interest responds to pop culture. Pop makes lots of money. Unpop doesn't. Marketing helps expose the public to new ideas, but it can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Postman:

 

Nonsense. Commercial interest responds to pop culture. Pop makes lots of money. Unpop doesn't. Marketing helps expose the public to new ideas, but it can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

Of course commercial interest is responsive to any form of culture that can yield commercial advantage. That is only is one side of the statement. Culture that is purely commercial loses it's resonance over time, due to distance from the significant issues of society. The American pop song is in danger of losing it's social relevance and meaning.

 

My quibble is not with marketing per se, but generic quality of the music marketing that is being practiced today. Procter and Gamble could do better demographic strategies... and they sell meaningful stuff ... like toothpaste.

 

The quality of marketing should not be measured only by the dollars brought in, but also the strength of the brands built. Today's (music) brands are enjoying shorter and shorter lifecycles. This is evidence of a serious marketing problem in music today.

 

There is so much marketing myopia out there. I'll give you with one more example. Marketing people are saying... female teenagers spend the most bucks, so what can we market to them? Wrong question.

 

The right question is.. why are people with more disposable money than female teenagers not into buying music?

 

It is a simple but serious problem: music with no message has no meaning.

 

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pop makes lots of money. Unpop doesn't. Marketing helps expose the public to new ideas, but it can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

 

Can't disagree with that statement but in context it might be more productive to say it's about who makes money instead of focusing on the amount of money.

 

Pop makes lots of money for a wide-array of people where 'Unpop' generally makes money for the musicians who tour and the people they support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SteveRB:

Progressive music fans have always had to endure more criticism than just about any other genre.

 

 

What about Disco, New Wave, Surf Music, 70's Soft Rock, New Age, 80's Pop Metal, Girl Bands, Boy Bands, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Elvis, etc.???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still disagree with the review's premise. All of the music done today is dated. As in based on styles and forms from 40 to 20 years ago. For some reason the simpler artists aren't dredging up moldy old styles to use in their stuff. Admittedly Beck is a mad genious, but no one I'm aware of disses him for cutting and pasting a collage of trippy 60's rock and Motown and calling it a record. But for some reason he's cool, and the only progger I'm aware of that even Jim Aikin respects - and I'm not sure of that - is Keith Emerson. I'm sorry, but the only way that prog rock is a laughable dinosaur only fit for ridicule, is if classical music is only for morons. And coyote stole my line, darn him. :D
This keyboard solo has obviously been tampered with!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem that all music today is dated. I was listening to a club/dance track on non-comercial radio and noticed that most the sequencer work with done with simple short repetative (but hynoptic) stuctures. If you dropped the vocal track out it would remind you of the old German electronic school of rock ( old Tangerine Dream ). There is a lot of dance music in that vein. The point is things musical seem cyclic at the least.

After everything I've read in these posts I now have to go find a copy of "Feeding The Wheel"; I,m really curious. :cool: Michael

Q:What do you call a truck with nothing in the bed,nothing on the hitch, and room for more than three people in the cab? A:"A car"....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Tusker:

The right question is.. why are people with more disposable money than female teenagers not into buying music?

 

Jerry

 

Yes, especially when, at least in the Denver area, the vast majority of airplay is of the classic rock genre. Doesn't that seem to suggest to you that the majority of listeners are older? It does to me. The problem is that they're playing tunes off of CDs I already own. There's nothing left for me to buy! Why can't the music business find new bands that cater to the older audience?

 

Maybe they don't know how. Maybe the industry relies too heavily on concert tours to generate grass roots support for an artist. The over 35 crowd (which includes me) go to maybe one or two concerts a year. For me, it's a matter of feeling increasingly uncomfortable with the generation gap. Is this the reason for the retro sound of current top 40 radio? Is this their attempt to cater to us? For me it works somewhat. I like some of the tunes, but at the same time I get a strong feeling of "been there, done that", too.

 

It is disheartening that now that I have the money to freely buy any CD I want, I find myself walking out of record stores with nothing more often than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...