Frontline tonight sounds fascinating for musicians and music fans... The modern music scene was created in 1969, at Woodstock. Half a million fans, dozens of artists, and the politics of the times came together as a big bang moment that eventually would generate billions of dollars. But over the last twenty years, MTV, compact discs, corporate consolidation, Internet piracy, and greed have contributed to a perfect storm for the recording industry. FRONTLINE examines how the business that has provided the soundtrack of the lives of a generation is on the verge of collapse.
Sounds interesting. I heard about it on the drive home from work and will definatly be tuning in. Now i just have to figure out what channel PBS is...
I think it was either Randy Newman or Grace Slick who said that Woodstock was the deathknell of real rock n roll, because producers stuck in traffic couldn't believe how popular it was, and immediately saw it as an investment opportunity. Next step; Peter Frampton.
Actually, it was Neil Young. He said, "Guys on Wall Street saw the traffic backed up at Woodstock and said, 'Look at that market.'" Frontline was actually a little disappointing. I wanted more in-depth analysis and they chose the feature angle - talk to a music vet (Crosby), a band trying to re-make their success (Velvet Revolver) and an up-and-coming artist (Hudson). I liked the interviews with the producers, writers, record guys, attorneys, managers, etc. a lot better. That was much more interesting. Just not enough of it. They couldn't cover everything because they spent to much time talking to people I just didn't give a crap about. Oh well.
Clear channel is the death of music --- file sharing is the rebirth. Velvet Revolver isn't that great, but they will be incredibly popular because of corporate over exposure (I think this was a good example for FL). Everything has become some sort of conglomerate.
Lol! I saw the interview when I was in high school...I actually wondered if it could have been Young or Crosby for a sec...
Great piece, I was thinking I should post to let everyone know. How do you know VR isn't that great? From that one single? I agree that Slither is average at best, but at least wait a couple weeks for the album to come out. Contraband will be a very good album. Just not as good as Chinese Democracy!
I'm not a fan of bands like Velvet Revolver, but those guys ARE good. That is a great-sounding record. If they have success, and they probably will, that is deserving. It is a great rock record. Definitely not my cup o' tea, though. I just don't see anything as the re-birth of music. Frankly, I see the re-birth as having not happened yet. The only way popular music is "re-born" is if we see a massive departure from loyalty to radio and the major labels to independent artists and labels. File-sharing hasn't done anything but given people an alternate way to get the same popular crap everyone would've just bought anyway. It hasn't boosted the sales of indie releases. The independent record industry has seen its sales decline, not rise. Personally, I think the one guy hit the nail on the head. He said that file sharing was the result of kids buying CD's for one song and realizing they just paid a bunch of extra money for a bunch of extra garbage when they just wanted the one song. Who can blame people for turning away from the CD? But, it hasn't revolutionized MUSIC, only music distribution. And, some might argue, that downloading has served to re-inforce the industry's obsession with the hit single because full-length CD's are becoming obsolete. Truth is, until the music industry starts developing artists over the long term and turns away from the need to have one hit single without caring about the relative skill of the artist performing it, we are doomed to radio filled with crappy songs from bands and artists who can't make good music. As David Crosby said on the show, "Brittany Spears looks great. It doesn't matter that she can't write, play or sing. And who cares if she has nothing to say and is about as deep as a birdbath?" Until we have a thriving industry independent of the BIG 5 where they can put pressure on the big labels by introducing artists with legitimate critical and popular success, we'll continue to get a stream of garbage whether it comes on a disc or through a download.
I wish I could blame the industry, but I see too many people who actually like crap that is played on the radio. I blame the consumer. Not many people like the weird bands I listen to.
Jeff, So you've heard Contraband? I'm curious, as I'm fanatic when it comes to anything Guns N' Roses. How did you get to hear it? And what would you describe the sound to be like? From the tracks I've heard, it's classic Slash. Any similarities to AFD? Someone brought that up, and Weiland kinda brushed it off. I don't think it will 'revolutionize' music, I just hope it's a straight up rock album from start to finish! I can't end this post without saying that I think Chinese Democracy will be huge. I've heard about six songs through various sources, and the stuff is amazing!
Yeah, but hooks and bridges are chosen because they work on us, in general, on a level not of our choosing.
It definitely won't revolutionize music. It's just a rock record. A friend of mine who did some work on it had a copy and played it for me - just bits and pieces of most of the songs.
I don't think it is liking crap so much as laziness. Most people don't want to work for their entertainment. Some of us will take great pains to find good music. Most won't. They'll like whatever is played for them on the radio or VH1/MTV. So, with the lessening diversity on the radio created by the consolidation of both radio stations and record labels, you have people getting fed a steady diet of the safest possible music. One of the guys on Frontline made a really good point. He said that when the big corporations took over, they were more concerned with showing profits quarterly, so the labels had to adjust to that business model. As a result, if an artist (he used the Rolling Stones as an example) was set to be done with a record by late fall, but it had to be pushed into August to meet quarterly productivity deadlines, how can that possibly be good for the music? The simple answer is that it can't be. Art is not a process ruled by deadlines nor should it be. But, because the business model is more important than the artistic merit of a recording, the balance fails and we get mass-produced crapola.
I wonder how much this has affected artist development. These days, the big record companies are expecting artists to sell millions of records right from the get-go. There is no time for them to develop as artists. Seems like bands/artists are less likely to take any chances musically for fear of being dropped. I think that's why there are so many mainstream bands that look and sound exactly alike. Think about how many great bands we would have never heard of if this were the case 20 years ago.
That is absolutely correct. I remember reading about record company execs saying back in the 70's that they didn't even expect an artist to really find his/her creative voice until the THIRD RECORD. That was sort of the industry standard. Is it efficient? Hell no, but it sure has produced a lot of remarkable music.
You have the internet as a tool. Go find them. I did and the album does sound good. Out of the "new" bands trying to reclaim their former glory, I think they will do fine. Audioslave's release was better IMO, but Velvet Revolver will hold their own.
Great input Jeff! I think you're pretty much hit the nail on the head with every post. What is even worse for the industry is that the music producing model is being copied over and over. The biggest culprit, IMO, is the rap industry. The big labels figured out what worked and before we knew it hundreds of home labels popped up blueprinting the same sound. The rap industry is not alone though. There are more Nickelback, Blink 182 and Limp Bizkit clones than I care to count.
A possibility is that today current generation of youth don't place the same importance on music as we older f*cks did in our day. If that were to change, I suspect that the truly independent radio stations (like owned and run by colleges) and the internet would lead the way. Major labels and corporate radio would be decidely a day late and a dollar short.
I don't think it would have affected a band like the Stones like that; they were so prolific. What I don't get is bands in the 70s used to make an album every year, sometimes more than that. Now if you as a fan get one every other year, that's pretty damn fast. Some bands take 3, 4, or 5 years (or more) between albums. What's the deal with that?
