I think it is funny when the words better and music are mentioned in the same sentence without the word like. IMO, any music is just as "good" as any other, it is all a matter of taste. I like Pearl Jam and Madonna. I don't like the Beatles. A lot of people would say that the Beatles are "better" than Pearl Jam. I don't see it that way. Music is subjective. Whether you like stuff you pick up off of the radio, or you go out and hunt for indie bands makes no difference. The purpose of listening to music, for me anyway, is to enjoy it, not to be challenged or whatever. As long as you enjoy the music you are listening to, that is the right music for you.
Jeff captured the problem with modern music in a nutshell - it's not the bands, it's the industry. I would also argue that the amazing technological improvements that we've seen in music over the last 20 years has contributed to the death of artists. Because music recordings have reached the point where the sound almost as good as live performances (or even better, if the artist is a shaky live performer or if the live music venue has a crappy PA system), people aren't as inclined to go see live bands anymore. Consequently, the live music market has been pretty much reduced to venues for big-name touring acts and a few dives for the rest. Bands no longer have as many places to practice and develop their music in front of an audience. Of course, promoting attractive-looking performers of dubious musical talent has been made all the easier by ProTools and similar computer programs. When you can fix all those flat notes and overlay a thin voice with 10-part harmonies, anybody can end up sounding good. Finally, I have a question for everyone. Does anyone think that the gradual evaporation of art education in this country has contributed to state of music? For example, would music be better if everyone had to listen to and learn about great music? Would more daring artists have wider audiences if more people simply had some musical knowledge?
sub: GREAT post. I'd like to give my thoughts on this. I see this more as a learning curve than a disadvantage. Bands do have a tougher time honing their craft in front of people, but the Beatles stopped playing halfway through their careers and made their best music after they stopped touring. Steely Dan would go years without a tour. I do think that you are correct about CD's sounding as good as live performances but I'd take it a step further. I think they sound better. People expect bands to sound like CD's and live sound technology isn't even in the same universe as studio technology. Until we can isolate every person in a perfect sound chamber at a concert (not a likely concept), live sound will struggle to reproduce what CD's do effortlessly. In addition, because of the quality of recording and the emphasis on perfection in the studio, bands are not required to have good live performances. So, they don't worry about it and, consequently, tend to suck live. As a result, the industry has mostly divested itself of touring and has left that to the bands. Bands need to tour to make money and to promote themselves. Good tours mean money from ticket sales, merchandising (the REAL money for artists) and CD sales as the result of good shows. Because the cost of shows has increased, the quality of sound gone down and the bands are more focused on videos and recording, the main source of income and promotion is gone. By the way, several of the big 6 (Sony for example) own huge stakes in the recording and CD industry but none of them has a sizable vested interest in the touring business. So, guess which one they think is more important and emphasize. There is a line from a Ben Folds song on his latest album that goes: I'm rockin' the suburbs, Take the checks and face the facts, Some producer with computers Fixes all my ****ty tracks. The advent of digital technology has been wonderful and horrible all at the same time - the whole blessing and a curse phenomena. Yes, you can pitch correct vocals fairly easy (thank God for Antares Auto Tune!) and layer in harmonies. You can also do multiple edits of solos, copy entire sections of songs to paste in other areas and produce entire songs from snippets of other songs. All this is good and bad. It is good because it improves the overall quality of created music BUT it also removes much of the human element. However, what the digital world has added is special effects that could never be duplicated with instruments. That has given rise to a whole new wave of creative musicians that frequently blow my minds with the things they do. It also have given guys like me access to studio technology that used to be reserved for HUGE studios with 6-figure budgets. Much like the computers used by early astronauts had the power of a good modern pocket calculator. A good digital recording setup has more power than the A room at Abbey Road had in the 70's. Unfortunately, all the gear in the world doesn't make you talented, but it sure does make it easier for me to write and make music. I got my first 4-track recorder at 18 after years of recording one part onto a tape player and playing that back through a stereo while another tape player was recording so I could do "overdubs." My studio gear now allows me to pursue ideas I had only once dreamt of doing on my own. That's an interesting question. I'm sure it has, at some level, contributed to a lack of education in music but I'm not sure if it has contributed to a lack of interest. The interest in it still seems fairly high if not in the traditional ideal of playing an instrument and being in a band. The New York Times actually reported recently that there is a ridiculous shortage of drummers and that some artists have actually had to postpone tours and recording sessions because of the lack of quality players! I do think, however, that while education may have had some impact, a bigger impact may be the lack of funding of artistic projects throughout the country. The fact that many symphonies and musical projects are struggling to make ends meet is indicative of a fairly serious problem for "art." For years, art was funded by patrons and government. As that declines, so does the quality of the art produced because it has to meet the criterion of bottom line economics. Art and commerce make ugly partners very often.
One more point about digital recording. In the studio business, time is money (like everywhere). Having all the time in the world to work on vocals, add overdubs, play around with effects, etc and do it for free (when it would cost $150 - $300 per hour in a good studio) is absolutely invaluable. Last year, for example, I was able to record string parts for a song. I brought in a violinist friend of mine and had her record a BUNCH of parts on viola and violin. I got a string section without the cost of hourly studio time which would have made it a practical impossibility for me and my partner.
Alright, I have cooled off somewhat. I just want to say that there are no hard feelings towards anyone in this thread. Mrs. JB: I was impressed with your last post. I guess I was a little belligerent last night. I let a post in another thread get me going. It was childish but I guess I need to do a better job in staying calm on this BBS. You didn't have to apologize for me acting like an ass. However, I was impressed that you took the time to do that...thanks. Rimbaud: I was a little annoyed with your post because I felt like you were joining in with the others, but I see where you are coming from. I respect you alot on this BBS and although I was pissed at first with you, I'm glad that you said what you said because I needed that & that also goes to Jeff - who did the same thing but maybe in a little bit nicer tone. f4p: I'm sorry, man. I will try to do better in toning it down about popular music. I like your posts and I always read them. You should have been in the tournament of Pued's. Thanks for your last post. TheFreak: Your idea is a good one, and it's one that maybe we should try to explore farther. I would eagerly look forward to discussing music with you, Jeff, subtomic, and anyone else. I came really close to deciding not to post about music on this BBS ever again because I felt like I was backed into a corner. I have tried really hard not to be an ass like I first was but at the same time, I will stand up for myself if I feel like I'm being pummeled. Looking back, I guess I shouldn't have posted since I wasn't in a good mood. However, everything is cool. So, once again, no hard feelings.
What bothers me about the future of music is the ability of the recording studios to make anyone sound good. Did y'all see that episode of the Simpsons when they form a boy band and N*Sync guest stars? It seems like music is going to end up being about a pretty face with an altered voice. Talent won't be important. It's all about who the industry can market well. Jeff, you seemed to almost touch on this in your last post. Do you, or anyone else for that matter, have any thoughts on this?
Manny, I honestly did not want to "gang up" on you or have a mean tone. Seriously, if you interpreted it as mean, then I guess I didn't communicate well. Was it because I said your cd collection was too important to you? If it was, I apologize because it was a joke (should have put a smilie or disclaimer). As for the rest, it wasn't to put you in place or show my musical superiority, I was just trying to show that music is so subjective. Let me know what it was that you thought was harsh. Even though you now say you are glad I posted that way, I would like to know how it was read.
Well, that has been happening in the pop music business for 50 years. Boy bands and pop stars are nothing new. In the 60's, the music industry, as a response to the emerging rock and folk genres and while Elvis was in the army, tried to counter with a completely manufactured batch of bands and singers. They sold well but eventually collapsed under the crushing weight of the late 60's. Motown shot pictures of black singers in light that made them look more white and had them sing "pretty songs" because the darker-skinned, straight gospel-inspired singers like Aretha Franklin supposedly scared people. In the 70's, You Light Up My Life was crammed down the throats of an American public even though Dark Side of the Moon was killing everyone in sales. It isn't really about making anyone good. You have to have some degree of talent to succeed in the music business. Machines can do a lot but they aren't perfect and they can't solve every problem. Also, listeners tire of hearing the same crap over and over. Mostly, listeners get older and their tastes change. The music industry wants to get as much of that disposable income 14-21 year olds can spare. They want every dime they can squeeze out of them. Once people hit their mid 20's, their tastes change and it is harder to get them to spend money on CD's which is why the pop bands and boy bands are pushed so incredibly hard. Recording gear may make that possible, but you don't NEED it to make it happen. All you need is a willing audience. There have been plenty of horrible-sounding recordings that made plenty of money and lots of great one's that tanked. The problem I see facing the business today is that they are burning through bands and artists at an alarming rate. No one gets more than 1 or 2 records before they get tossed. As Billy Joel so astutely put it back in the 70's: If I go cold I won't get sold. I'll get put in the back in the discount rack, Like another can of beans. What makes me nervous is that, eventually, the talent pool has to diminish. They will have gone through pretty much all the GREAT talent and will have to move to the GOOD and eventually the MEDIOCRE. Look, as much as I don't like Christina Aguilera or Mariah Carey, there is no doubting their skills as singers. But, Carey's star is rapidly fading. She can't sell like she used to and has already been dropped twice. If it weren't for her track record, she'd be dead an buried. Aguilera is on a similar path. And, that is just pop music where sales are manufactured rather than earned. A lot of people here seem to really like Radiohead. They have won a ton of critical acclaim, but their album sales are in decline. They are going to be held to the same standards as any other artist and if they cannot maintain a high level of sales, they'll eventually be abandoned as well. To be honest, though Princess, for all the advancements technology has made that give bad musicians a chance to sound good, it has also given good musicians who couldn't get a record deal if their lives depended on it the opportunity to have success through the use of the same technology. The average recording budget for a CD today is close to $100,000. Where is a guy or girl who waits tables for a living going to get that kind of money? Since they can't, the next best thing is doing it yourself. There is a HUGE community out there (and growing rapidly) of home studio enthusiasts. I'm on a couple of mailing lists and I frequent a few bulletin boards and there are thousands of people out there making music at home. Not all of it is good but what a surprise that is. Not everything released by record companies is good either. So, I think, like everything, there are positives and negatives to the situation. But, I'd rather have the opportunity to screw up than be forced to just sit and wait on some monolith to "discover" me or the next big talent that comes along.
Rimmy, I don't know how to really explain it other than I kept feeling in that thread that I was having to answer different people (SCF, f4p, Jeff, Mrs. JB, etc.). It got to be overwhelming and for some reason, I guess I wasn't in a jovial mood when I read your post. I admire you alot because you are so well-rounded and your posts make me think (when I understand the subtleties (sp-?)). I wish that I could post and hold my own in the conversations about politics and foreign affairs, but I cannot. Music is one thing that I feel that I can talk about with anyone here. As mentioned before, I let one little comment in another thread set me off. I will try to be better in keeping my temper in check here, but I got the feeling that I was giddyup...I mean RichRocket...if that makes sense. Although I do enjoy the challenge of arguing with people about things that I feel like I know, I don't enjoy getting backed into a corner which is what I felt was happening. So, in summary, it was really nothing you said....it was that I had reached a point in that thread that if anyone, no matter who it was, had said anything less than a pat on my back that it was going to piss me off. Maybe, I shouldn't have said that your post bothered me and just kept it to myself. But, really everything is fine.
jeff, if i read you correctly, you're off base, here; venturing into hypocritical waters, in fact. how can you tie a band's relevance to the scope of their influence in the same thread you deride the short-sighted, copy-catting, money-driven sorry state of today's music industry? i'm at a lost as to how a litany of pearl jam knock-offs would validate their place among the musical pantheon. by the same token, that a band like creed is currently repackaging souless knockoffs of ten doesn't, or at least, shouldn't render ten the zenith of pearl jam's scope of influence. i'd argue pearl jam is more relevant right now than they ever were during their ten heyday (ten isn't, after all, a groundbreaking musical achievement). their bootleg series last year was unprecendented, and their fan club continues to set industry standards. this year, they'll release their final album on epic and will likely become one of the biggest independent bands in the history of music, as they explore ways to release their music in lieu of label support (likely via the internet, which could, if successful, make napster look like the pet rock craze of the 70's). i'd rate pearl jam alongside u2 with no hesitation in terms of relevance (and we all saw last weekend how relevant u2 remains). and i'd say with few exceptions, that u2 and pearl jam have few peers in terms of their place right now in the music industry. both continue to make vital music that reflects the times in which we live, both continue to use rock as forum to instigate discussion and action and both can virtually go anywhere they want, sell the joint out and profoundly affect their audience in ways few bands can. that an homogenized music industry is no longer taking notice isn't really a relevant point. or did i misunderstand?
If you are arguing over one band, that's fine. There are always exceptions to the rule. But, in the totality of what is out there, it is pretty clear that fewer artists have been able to stand the test of time since 1987 than before. There have been entire books and extensive articles written by pretty well-respected music writers on this very subject. While Pearl Jam certainly has a place for its legacy among artists as does Nirvana and some others, it is also clear that their more recent releases do not yield the influence that others did. It is fine to have a legacy built on a foundation of a couple of albums, but it doesn't make you still relevant today. U2 is probably a good one to compare. They have been making records now for almost 20 years. They have been able to maintain a consistent level of sales AND critical success through a widely changing industry. Their last record was grammy material and still managed to sell a ton. Pearl Jam has not been able to maintain that level of success throughout its career. At their peak, they were monumentally influential, but their more recent releases have met with far less success. This isn't to belittle their accomplishments as musicians or when they were having tremendous success. Ten is a very important album in the scheme of pop and rock music. But, to suggest they have been able to maintain that same level of success with subsequent releases is off base. Maybe a better thing to say would be: Pearl Jam's album Ten still renders its influence among rock artists after 10 years even if the band's popularity and critical success has waned.
jeff, i make it a point to stay out of music threads due to their high level of subjectivity. everyone brings a bias into their dicussions and they paint their arguments accordingly, making the entire process kind of silly. with that, i'll have my final say on this and turn the floor over to you... unless you infuriate me and drag me back into this, pacino-style an artists' relevance is not measured in record sales nor can we count their grammy nominations and discern much of anything. and shame on you for suggesting that we can. the fact is pearl jam sells out every single venue they play and have for the past decade; they continue to chart albums despite ZERO promotion of said albums (save for tours), ZERO airplay on MTV and virtually ZERO radioplay -- all by their own accord; they continue to be relevant, vital and i dare say important artists and activists (as demonstrated by their inclusion on the 9/11 telethon broadcast and their role in ralph nader's presidential campaign). most importantly, they continue to challenge the banality of the recording industry. first, they spurned mtv, then they fought ticketmaster. and as i mentioned, next year, they'll likely become one of the biggest, most influential independent artists in history. that creed now sells more albums in an indictment of everything wrong with the music industry, not an indication that pearl jam's light has faded. they are successful. hell, i hate to do this, but spin freaking magazine ranked them 26th on their list of all-time most influential bands, and, fyi, listed vitalogy, not ten, as their essential recording (which i would definitely agree with)... not that that should be used as validation (though, fwiw, it'd carry more weight with me than sales or grammy nominations).
Ric: Try reading the entire thread before you suggest that I am saying that record sales determine influence and artistry. I think that you are taking this example to an extreme. You are obviously a fan and that's fine, but I'm talking about the big picture, not Pearl Jam. I'm talking about the industry as a whole, not one band. Personally, I don't really care much about the influence of one band. It is unimportant in comparison to the overall. Pearl Jam may still sellout venues but so does REO Speedwagon and Styx. That doesn't really account for influence any more than record sales do. In fact, the biggest touring acts in terms of ticket sales are routinely the huge pop acts (Backsteet Boys, etc) and the "classic rock" artists because they represent the two categories of fan that still will spend money on concerts: rabid fans and people over the age of 35. They either have disposable income or they are throwbacks to a time when going to the concert was as important as owning the record. It doesn't work that way any longer. Even venue sizes have changed to accomodate the difference. An artist used to be able to sell out a 16,000-seat arena if they went gold. Now, artists with 5 million in record sales do "theater tours" or play 10,000-seat venues on shortened tours. Only the huge name artists and throwbacks can continue to have viable big-time touring success. And, grammys aren't a particlularly good representation of critical acclaim, but it was a comparison I used to illustrate the fact that U2 still enjoys tremendous critical success along with record sales and touring longevity. It is the trifekta of pop music success. It is one thing to sell out an arena, another to go platinum and still another to win critical acclaim. To do all three DOES determine success, especially if you are able to do it over the course of time. It means that you found success in three of the most difficult areas all at the same time and were able to sustain it. The longer that holds true, the greater the overall influence you can have. I respect your arguments about one band, but this goes much deeper and further than one artist. It cuts across the entire industry and that isn't very well represented by Pearl Jam.
Thanks Jeff! I figured you'd have a good response. I guess I knew there was another side of it, I just had no idea what it was. I'm glad good things have come from it!
actually, jeff, i did read the thread and that's why i found your comments about pearl jam in direct disagreement with most of what you've posted previously. it's a case of trying to have your cake and eat it, too. on the one hand, you're rightly and, i think, accurately portraying the industry, in a nutshell, as a souless w**** to the almighty dollar. but on the other, you're dismissing a group because they're not achieving success as mandated by... (drumroll, please) the very same evil industry. that doesn't jive, man. it's true, there aren't very many bands among the post-'87/pre-'98 era that will stand the test of time; i don't have a problem with that. but, as an offshoot from that point, i do have a problem with you not including pearl jam among the exceptions. they most certainly are.
Ok, I see what you mean. I guess the problem is deciding what does actually constitute success then. That might be difficult without some context on which to draw. Hmmmmm. That's a good point. I just didn't catch what you meant the first time. I'll have to think about that. Well, I respect your opinion on that one. I think we'll have to agree to disagree there. I like Pearl Jam quite a bit. I just don't see them as having a broad influence currently because I just never hear or read about them anywhere - radio, news, tv, magazines, etc. Of course, that takes us right back to where we started, doesn't it? Nevermind, you're probably right.
I have serious issues with defining any of the manufactured pop stars as musicians. Most of them don't write their own lyrics. Most of them don't play their own instruments. Most of them don't write their own music. How can anyone call a bunch of singing puppets musicians? I guess you can say that Jim Henson pioneered modern pop.
Manny, It was no big deal. I was just trying to see if I had been unaware of the potentially interpreted tone. So, no problem that you posted what you did (and I am glad there was no real problem with me). Stop with the compliments, though...I might start believing them and get a big head.
