UK Music Critic: This Is The Golden Age For Music

from the you-can-listen-to-whatever-you-want dept

While we keep hearing record execs and politicians bemoaning the state of the recording industry, UK music critic John Harris has written up a great article at the BBC pointing out how wrong they are, and noting that this is the "golden age of infinite music." Indeed. This is exactly what we've been saying for years, though not as eloquently as Harris:
Last weekend, by contrast, I had a long chat about music with the 16-year-old son of a friend, and my mind boggled.

At virtually no cost, in precious little time and with zero embarrassment, he had become an expert on all kinds of artists, from English singer-songwriters like Nick Drake and John Martyn to such American indie-rock titans as Pavement and Dinosaur Jr.

Though only a sixth-former, he seemingly knew as much about most of these people as any music writer.

Like any rock-oriented youth, his appetite for music is endless, and so is the opportunity - whether illegally or not - to indulge it. He is a paid-up fan of bands it took me until I was 30 to even discover - and at this rate, by the time he hits his 20s, he'll have reached the true musical outer limits.

What does all this tell us? Clearly, for anyone raised in the old world, the modern way of music consumption has all kinds of unforeseen benefits.
He notes that smarter musicians are realizing they can't just offer up "filler" material any more, but need to focus on music that's actually good, and that the industry itself needs to change:
So, yes, the record industry may yet have to comprehensively reinvent itself, or implode. Sooner or later, given that the need to read reviews before deciding what to listen to is fading fast, I rather fear that even music journalists may be rendered irrelevant.

But for now, this is a truly golden age - the era of the teenage expert, albums that will soon have to be full of finely-honed hits and the completely infinite online jukebox.

Even if the music business manages to somehow crack down on illicit downloading and claws back a few quid via annual subscriptions in return for that self-same endless supply of music, the same essential rules will apply. Really: what's not to like?
The one area where I disagree with Harris, is that he seems to think that this will push some artists to focus on creating more "hits" rather than more thoughtful music that "grows" on people. I'm not so sure of that (and I haven't seen it in the niche areas of music that I follow). Instead, because communities build up around certain artists or music genres, the community actually does a good job promoting the music and giving it life, rather than relying on it being a massive "hit."

We've said it before, and it should be said again: nearly everything about the music industry today is better. More music is being made than ever before. More people are making music than ever before. More people are listening to new music than ever before. More musicians are making money from music than ever before. Even more musical instruments are being sold than ever before. The only thing suffering is the sale of plastic discs (though, the sales of iPods are doing quite well). The problem isn't the music industry. The problem is with a certain small group of businesses who built their business on the concept of selling plastic discs.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    RD, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 3:57pm

    I'd go further

    I dont even think its a problem of "with a certain small group of businesses who built their business on the concept of selling plastic discs." I think the medium is not the issue (or rather, is, but not in this way), but rather its the ARTIFICIAL LIMITS/CONTROLS that these old-ways business people are trying to perpetuate when they are no longer needed. This would include LIMITING distribution to things like plastic discs, instead of embracing other, likely more efficient and profitable, methods of distribution. The bottleneck is on this end, and not on the production end. And that bottleneck is no longer a market-force issue, it is (or can be) virtually eliminated. OF course, for those who DEPEND on that bottleneck (and the resulting control it offers to the people on one side of it) this is a huge problem and why they come out so strongly against ANYTHING that a) counters it and b) they dont also control.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 5:13pm

    Irony

    "He notes that smarter musicians are realizing they can't just offer up "filler" material any more, but need to focus on music that's actually good..."

    So the stated goal of copyright is only being fulfilled by massive copyright violation.

    What have you learned?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Mr Big Content, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 5:53pm

    What Is Wrong With You People?!?

    What is this guy smoking? Is he another of those poor unfortunates that has been driven out of his mind by paying too much attention to the so-called “scientific evidence”? Has everybody in the world completely lost touch with reality? Am I the only sane one left who still understands what Intellectual Property is truly all about?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 7:24pm

    This is what caught my eye

    I read the article when it came out. This is the part that I'm focusing on:

    For musicians, it's self-evident that there are all kinds of new openings for their music, but even if they break through, much less concerted attention will be paid to it.

    They may get an audience, but it will be very easily distracted. After all, endlessly playing the same album so as to extract your "money's worth" is behaviour that will soon seem like something from the dark ages.


    The churn in music today (and I am talking about unsigned acts, not signed acts) is pretty relentless. First you're undiscovered. Then you're the buzz band. Then you're abandoned, and the bloggers move on to someone new.

    It will be interesting to see how many teen and young adult fans continue to support their current favorites 10 years from now. Of course, over the history of rock, there haven't ever been many Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylans, Grateful Deads, etc. But if DIY artists are counting on loyal fans to financially support them year after year, there will be challenges, both to maintain those relationships and in continuing to put out enough content (music and everything else) to keep the fans subscribing and buying.

    It's kind of like a brand. How do you keep it vital for years?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 7:24pm

    Re: What Is Wrong With You People?!?

    "Am I the only sane one left who still understands what Intellectual Property is truly all about?"

    Apparently. Please explain it for the rest of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 7:36pm

    Re: Re: What Is Wrong With You People?!?

    He might have to explain satire, too.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 7:50pm

    Re: This is what caught my eye

    Suzanne, it's why it is so much fun to read this site, because issues like that are never addressed.

    Today's music (not just commercial, but DIY) is very transient in nature. Very little of it is memorable, or has a long term shelf life. Today's star is more of than not tomorrows forgotten joe, a trivia question at best. Much of what is out there now is long on short term image, and short on long term sustainability or interest.

    If commercial / label music disappears, and is replaced by a DIY framework, it is likely only to get worse. Few artists will be able to gain true international recognition, and potentially few will even make it on a national level in the US, except for those who are already "made" by the old regime.

    Without the grander framework and back catalog support, what happens to these artists music in the long run? Artist dies, his website goes down, and the music is lost forever, nothing more than the remaining mp3 files clogging up people's hard drives remain.

    It becomes all about here and now, no a long term play but a short term game of produce, play, forget, move on.

    Instead of the Beatles or Grateful Dead, we are looking at Corey Smith and Facepalm Palmer. It's not promising.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 8:20pm

    Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    "Wahh, musicians will actually have to keep producing good music in order to remain relevant. THE HORROR!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 9:03pm

    Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    Yes. So many hard-drives with so many backups. All with even faster connections than exist currently. And with more space. Hell, I hardly worry about space anymore, as I know a new terabyte HD is less than a $100 , and making a slapdash server to host music files for myself (and friends) is essentially free with all the computer parts being tossed (currently have 7 spare comps capable of fulfilling this job well at this workstation in my home).
    Hard Drive space increases, cost decreases, transfer speeds (internet) increase. Thus redundancy increases. So much redundancy that there is little chance of the file being lost forever...just hidden maybe, or misplaced. As a computer engineer, the level of redundancy makes me happy, in that special technophilic kinda way.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Doctor Strange, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 9:39pm

    Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    Few artists will be able to gain true international recognition, and potentially few will even make it on a national level in the US

    Ah, but you forget that this is not a drawback, but a benefit of the new inattention economy. Rather than encouraging a few people to create things of lasting value, we will encourage many people to create many more things of transient value. Arguably, the many low-value things will, in the aggregate, be "worth more" than a few high-value things, so therefore this is a net benefit to everyone. 100 artists with one fan each > one artist with 50 fans.

    The other part of the argument is that great artists cease to be worthwhile as soon as they stop producing works. Who cares if Led Zeppelin made Stairway to Heaven, why are we still paying them today for something they did a long time ago just because it still brings enjoyment to thousands? We're practically retarding their creativity!

    The current system, in many ways, does not optimize for musical quality. However, it at least ties money directly to music (on plastic discs or otherwise). The business models proposed here tie money to everything but the music: live performances, T-shirts, good feelings, etc.

    I can't see how this will promote the creation of better music than the current system. I've a feeling it won't: quality and longevity will be exchanged for increased quantity and ephemerality. As I've said before, we will trade ounces of the finest creme brulee for pounds of Twinkies. This is what "the market" wants, I guess.

    The amazing thing to me is how excited everyone is about the impending Twinkie harvest.

    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with brulee but a Twinkie.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Colg, Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 9:41pm

    Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    "short on long term sustainability or interest."

    This has always been the exception rather than the rule.
    Many young people do not know or care who Dylan was.
    For every Dylan or McCartney there were thousands who were never known or were forgotten. Their efforts fill tons of dis-guarded vinyl. So what value is "the grander framework and back catalog support" is it better to have it all in one grand warehouse where it is forgotten or on a million hard drives where it is forgotten?

    "If commercial / label music disappears, and is replaced by a DIY framework, it is likely only to get worse. Few artists will be able to gain true international recognition"

    Few artist (comparatively speaking)were able to gain international recognition under the old regime. Weather any will rise to that Level after the old way of doing things passes remains to be seen. But then that isn't intrinsically bad. What is inherently correct or good about an industry being dominated by an elite (and by elite I do not imply superior) group of artist who are placed in their positions by virtue of backing received by a now antiquated distribution system?

    Music has a long history with the human race. Most of that history was "DIY". Edison's invention allowed a few to dominate music. The love child of A. Bell's network and J. Kilby's chip will end that domination.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 9:41pm

    Re: What Is Wrong With You People?!?

    "Am I the only sane one left who still understands what Intellectual Property is truly all about?"

    When the rest of the world changes and you refuse to acknowledge or even attempt to adapt you are the odd man out. Like the guy on the corner with the tin hat, I would consider you Insane.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 10:16pm

    Re: This is what caught my eye

    The churn in music today (and I am talking about unsigned acts, not signed acts) is pretty relentless. First you're undiscovered. Then you're the buzz band. Then you're abandoned, and the bloggers move on to someone new.

    Compare that to how it was before the internet. Then if you weren't signed you were a bar band and then you gave it up.

    I'd say today is vastly better.

    It will be interesting to see how many teen and young adult fans continue to support their current favorites 10 years from now.

    You would rather a market where everyone focuses on the old acts, rather than encouraging new acts? Why?

    But if DIY artists are counting on loyal fans to financially support them year after year, there will be challenges, both to maintain those relationships and in continuing to put out enough content (music and everything else) to keep the fans subscribing and buying.

    Indeed, but again, I have to compare this to how it was before. Unless you were one of the dozen or so superstar acts, the story was the same. Actually, that's not true. Unless you were one of those dozen, it was MUCH WORSE, because once your label dumped you, you had nowhere to go and you were out of business.

    At least today you have a chance.

    It's kind of like a brand. How do you keep it vital for years?

    You innovate.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 11:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    Rather than encouraging a few people to create things of lasting value, we will encourage many people to create many more things of transient value. Arguably, the many low-value things will, in the aggregate, be "worth more" than a few high-value things, so therefore this is a net benefit to everyone. 100 artists with one fan each > one artist with 50 fans.

    That's pretty much what I expect. Everyone will make music, very few will make a living at it, and we'll all play music to/with friends and family. I don't view this as bad or good. I just see music making becoming more and more diffuse. We'll all do it to some degree or another because we'll all have the tools to do it.

    The business models proposed here tie money to everything but the music: live performances, T-shirts, good feelings, etc.

    Yes, that's what I keep pointing out, too. The skills to become a popular musician don't necessarily require musical skills. Music becomes a promotional tool. We use it to get attention, and then we hope fans will pay for something else: merchandise, access, etc. Not that there is anything wrong with this. Music can definitely be an excellent promotional tool, which is why companies that sponsor artists and use music to sell the company's products have a good idea.

    But a lot of the skills we are asking of musicians today (e.g., chatting with fans online, selling products, selling their time with fans) are not musical skills. They are social and/or sales skills.

    The current system, in many ways, does not optimize for musical quality. However, it at least ties money directly to music (on plastic discs or otherwise).

    Yes, that's an issue that comes up in my mind, too. A lot of fans just want the music. They don't want to join fan clubs, they don't want t-shirts, etc. I'm not going to argue that music shouldn't be free. I don't think we can put the genie back into the bottle. I accept it as a reality.

    But if fans can get music for free in some fashion (I don't even mean illegal downloading -- there's a lot of free music to download or stream) and if that's all they want, they don't need to pay for anything more. Perhaps some of them will, as a form of patronage, but they may have no interest in buying stuff for their own personal use.

    Even with the label system falling apart, I think it is a challenging environment for musicians. Sure, some are pulling it off, but I think there are probably as many, or even more, starving artists than there used to be. Those artists who didn't get signed in the old days could still sell CDs and tapes on their own. And before the days of selling homemade CDs/tapes, they could find work playing live music. Thirty years ago, musicians could find decent jobs playing weekly gigs in restaurants and bars. There aren't as many of those as there used to be. I had friends who played in the 1970s and I have friends who play now. Often musicians are getting less now per night than they were then.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 2nd, 2009 @ 11:14pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    I should add that I think everyone will play music because they can. They may not be great writers or musical instrument players, but there will be enough technical tools to allow them to do something.

    And then they will share their creations with the world. The world may not notice, but they will feel creative and they will feel fulfilled.

    I think that's the new world of music. It isn't really about artists finding their core fans. It's about fans now becoming artists. MySpace allowed everyone who ever taped themselves playing in the garage to create a band site and upload songs. Now YouTube lets everyone become a video star. Is it any good? Does it really matter? They are having fun with it.

    So what I try to do is encourage everyone to participate in music, but don't necessarily quit your day job. The part where you are trying to earn a living at this is still hard.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Tele2002, Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 1:09am

    So where's the cash coming from

    Good discussion here, I think that the internet provided the means to gain access to every niche, as Suzanne pointed out, Myspace provide the platform for anyone to publish themselves, yet the record companies still want to cash in and make big bucks on their old business model of selling CD's and broadcasting rights.... Where does that leave the small artists?

    If you publish yourself on youtube with some background music, there is a very high probability that your video will be removed unless you can prove that you had the artists (or record companies) consent to use that peice of music, yet if someone loves your track that you self published on Myspace and helps promote you through the use, you don't have the lawyers banging down their doors....

    So where's the cash coming from for small self published artists?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 1:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    That's pretty much what I expect. Everyone will make music, very few will make a living at it, and we'll all play music to/with friends and family. I don't view this as bad or good. I just see music making becoming more and more diffuse. We'll all do it to some degree or another because we'll all have the tools to do it.

    Why do you expect fewer will make a living? I agree with the rest of your statement -- but see zero evidence that fewer will make a living from it. In fact, everything points to many more people being able to make a living at it.

    Yes, that's an issue that comes up in my mind, too. A lot of fans just want the music. They don't want to join fan clubs,

    So?

    But if fans can get music for free in some fashion (I don't even mean illegal downloading -- there's a lot of free music to download or stream) and if that's all they want, they don't need to pay for anything more. Perhaps some of them will, as a form of patronage, but they may have no interest in buying stuff for their own personal use.

    You have to understand the %s here. Assume that a large percentage won't buy anything. And that's fine. Who cares? They may introduce others to the music and if you can get them to buy stuff, you're golden. Too many people are way too concerned with "dealing with" the people who won't pay. Why? I don't get it. At all.

    But as for the others -- find stuff they will buy and sell it to them. And you're crazy if you think that this doesn't exist for most artists as you imply. We've yet to find an artist that couldn't find something unique to sell.

    Even with the label system falling apart, I think it is a challenging environment for musicians.

    Significantly less so than under the old system though. Significantly.

    Sure, some are pulling it off, but I think there are probably as many, or even more, starving artists than there used to be.

    Do you have *any* evidence to back that up? Because everything I've seen says the exact opposite.

    Those artists who didn't get signed in the old days could still sell CDs and tapes on their own.

    Which cost a lot of money to make, and they were selling them to a much more limited audience.

    Thirty years ago, musicians could find decent jobs playing weekly gigs in restaurants and bars. There aren't as many of those as there used to be. I had friends who played in the 1970s and I have friends who play now. Often musicians are getting less now per night than they were then.

    Then you hang out with the wrong musicians. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Sheinen, Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 4:23am

    How do you keep a brand vital for years?

    Surely thats the major plus of this whole thing?

    A few 'big players' shouldn't be able to monopalise the market with terrible music, just because they had one big hit before. Much better bands never get heard because they're throwing knives at a tank. Take away the tanks and let everyone throw knives (metaphorically of course)!

    Also - Why is it that old people always think their generation was the last to have 'good' music? You all preach about Zeppelin, Queen and Dylan but forget all the hundreds of long forgotten shit bands that plagued the era!

    Every generation has its great musicians, the ones that no-one will forget. Those are invariably the ones that do it for the love and not for the money. In the new system, without the lure of extortionate royalty cheques, those people are the only ones that will stick it out and that's bound to lead to better music!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 5:29am

    "The current system, in many ways, does not optimize for musical quality. However, it at least ties money directly to music (on plastic discs or otherwise). The business models proposed here tie money to everything but the music: live performances, T-shirts, good feelings, etc.

    I can't see how this will promote the creation of better music than the current system. I've a feeling it won't: quality and longevity will be exchanged for increased quantity and ephemerality. As I've said before, we will trade ounces of the finest creme brulee for pounds of Twinkies. This is what "the market" wants, I guess.

    The amazing thing to me is how excited everyone is about the impending Twinkie harvest."


    You know, I am starting to feel a bit like a broken record, but something keeps getting forgotten in these discussions that is really pretty relevant as far as the art of music goes: NOT ALL MUSIC IS POP MUSIC.

    Yes, it's true, there is all kinds of this non-pop music in the world. There always has been.

    Now to some people, the real Crème Brûlée, (and feel free to substitute Tiramisu, Croquembouche, Gateau St Honoré or any other pretentious European dessert that tickles your fancy) has always been found amidst this non-pop music. To these people, and they are among the most educated of music listeners, pop music, all pop music, is nothing more than a huge warehouse filled with Twinkies.

    Now I myself do not agree with these people, but their perspective is a healthy corrective to the attitude that would place the industry created megastars of the past 40 years on some kind of pedestal. Because neither the Beatles nor the Stones nor Led Zeppelin nor even Steely Dan could play any but the simplest passages written by Webern or Ives or Bartok or Varese or Nancarrow.

    20 years ago, most of the music of these obscure but gifted people was almost impossible to find. But because of the internet, today this music is almost as easy to obtain as the music of the aforementioned megastars. If the internet is also filled with the forgettable music of talentless idiots (and it is, no question), this is a small price to pay for the increased access to all kinds of musical culture.

    And finally, for those who like to look at the industry's past through rose colored glasses, a few glimpses of some of their less than legendary past accomplishments:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HejVjzhKTY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-mw1HGJjdA
    http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=oR62_JuVR8M
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEzh10_xoqw
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E9Wu1rhalo&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92e0JnS7wLg&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c71 RCAyLS1M&feature=related

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 8:03am

    Re: Re: Re: What Is Wrong With You People?!?

    "He might have to explain satire, too."

    Yeah, I missed his handle. Sad thing is you see too many people making similar arguments completely earnestly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 8:20am

    Re:

    Bad news for you: Reo Speedwagon is still on the road, still playing shows, still getting plenty of "classic rock" airplay, and still have a dedicated fanbase (I know one). Not all music is to anyone's taste, but that doesn't make it more or less "good".

    However, it's like anything. McDonalds isn't great food, but almost everyone eats there. Not all of us are going to spend $100 a plate for lunch, it's something we might do once or twice a year. In the same manner, most people will listen to pop, rock, or other forms of current popular music, and they may only sit down to jazz or classical once in a while.

    To each his own - musical taste has nothing to do with the concepts of business models and systems here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 8:26am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    I did go looking for some statistics to find out what the average musician makes in terms of income. I've pulled my findings together, but I haven't plotted anything on a timeline to show average income now versus five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago, etc.

    I have seen figures for the total music industry: recorded music, gigs, etc. Overall income from music seems to be holding up (although some of the Live Nation figures do appear to be coming down, so their section of the live music maybe a bit shaker than everyone has expected), but most people do say the pie is being sliced up into smaller and smaller pieces. A lot of people think that is a good thing because fewer fat cats are making money. I just see the trend continuing until the pie is sliced up into ever smaller and smaller pieces.

    I'll be very happy to be wrong about this, because many of my friends are musicians wanting to make a living at this.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 9:07am

    "Bad news for you: Reo Speedwagon is still on the road, still playing shows, still getting plenty of "classic rock" airplay, and still have a dedicated fanbase (I know one). Not all music is to anyone's taste, but that doesn't make it more or less "good".

    However, it's like anything. McDonalds isn't great food, but almost everyone eats there. Not all of us are going to spend $100 a plate for lunch, it's something we might do once or twice a year. In the same manner, most people will listen to pop, rock, or other forms of current popular music, and they may only sit down to jazz or classical once in a while.

    To each his own - musical taste has nothing to do with the concepts of business models and systems here."


    Which is something that I would ordinarily agree with.

    But the fact is that we have to read on a daily basis about how 'free music made by amateurs will never be able to compete with major label music'. The post that I quoted in my last post said essentially just that. When people say these things they invariably bring up the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, as if they were representative of the music industry as a whole. I simply gave some random examples of music that is, shall we say, somewhat less obviously great than the Beatles and Led Zeppelin.

    Sorry if I offended anyone's taste.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 11:34am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    The pie is getting sliced up because they're a lot more supply (artists to play) than demand (gigs to fill). If you don't take what the gig's offering, they turn to the next guy in line. but it's not true that this environment will make people LESS TALENTED than they are, and even if they have to start small (they would've in the old regime anyways), talented artists will still be recognized. And when gigs start to see that talented artisyts draw better than the next guy in line, they'll offer the talent a bigger part of the pie. More people will be making music, but people who make GOOD MUSIC will still come out ahead of the chaff.

    AND they'll have an easier time being noticed because they won't have to work hard getting distributed. The Masses will do that for them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Alan Gerow (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 12:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: What Is Wrong With You People?!?

    Or use it better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    mdwstmusik (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 12:19pm

    Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    "It becomes all about here and now, no a long term play but a short term game of produce, play, forget, move on."

    Are you kidding? That is exactly what the music industry has been about for, at least, the past 2 decades.

    "Hey, some band named 'Nickleback' just had a hit song...quick, find as many bands as you can that sound just like them. We'll have them record a bunch of mediocre tunes and flood the airwaves with them until people get sick of that sound, and then we'll move on to the next flavor of the month."

    There's always going to be a minority of exceptional artists, or else the wouldn't be exceptional, would they? But, now those artists don't need to make there music sound like the flavor of the month to be heard. No ones at the gate saying, "you don't sound like...so your music is never going to be distributed to the masses."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Nov 3rd, 2009 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is what caught my eye

    but it's not true that this environment will make people LESS TALENTED than they are, and even if they have to start small (they would've in the old regime anyways), talented artists will still be recognized. And when gigs start to see that talented artisyts draw better than the next guy in line, they'll offer the talent a bigger part of the pie.

    That's where it is going to get interesting. The concept of "talent" may evolve as the tools and technology evolve.

    Some people hate jam bands, but in terms of attracting a loyal fan base, they are some of the most successful artists.

    I've never put DJs in the same category as those who write and perform their own music, but for a lot of people DJs are talented and what they create is a great musical experience.

    On the local scene, we've always seen bar bands who can pack the house because they have a lot of fans who want to come, drink, and dance. They aren't necessarily "talented" in the usual sense, but they can draw like crazy.

    Now as social media becomes more important, artists who excel at developing a sense of community should have an advantage over those who don't.

    What I'm encouraging are more music events that are family-friendly, free or inexpensive, and occur at places other than bars. I absolutely think people will continue to enjoy live music, but I envision an expansion of what music used to be -- lots of people playing and singing, kids running around, people coming together for community.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    identicon
    Gene Cavanaugh, Nov 4th, 2009 @ 12:00pm

    Music lovers

    I agree; who needs engineers, farmers, doctors, lawyers,
    etc. These people do useful things - a pox on their houses!

    We have people who are intimately acquainted with non-productive people in the UK and US, and we can all just listen to music all day. That's what's important!!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This