View Full Version : It's All Over, The Music Industry Should Pack It In..
Docker_Brat
19 Nov 2002, 03:43
Really.
Everything has been done, there is nothing original anymore, we are even reduced to covers of dodgy 80s songs that weren't much chop in their original form.
Even dance music is old hat.
In reality I knew it was over 10 whole years ago when someone whacked on ekky decided it was a great idea to sample the Sesame Street tune.
"Why do you need new bands? Everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." - Homer.
PrideofSA
19 Nov 2002, 10:05
Nah, there will always be something new, new sounds, new bands, new styles, etc. What isn't particularly new is pop music as a general statement.
This is why I think we should let the 'REAL' bands come in to strut their stuff.
My boyfriends brother-in-law plays guitar in a band that's been around for years. They play gigs every weekend and back up bands such as Killing Heidi.
They've worked very hard to get where they are, they play GREAT rock music and LOVE what they do.
All they need is a break. So why the hell are crappy punkbands and boy bands still around singing about the girl they met somewhere or whatever getting these breaks instead of REAL musicians who are passionate about what they do. It really fires me up :mad:
The music industry isn't about talent anymore, it's about money and what makes teeny boppers melt.
It's purely generational. We look at music now and think: "****ing crazy kids", but it was most likely the same for people in our time as well.
As long as there is a decent mix of bands who continue to produce meaningful and emotional music, along with those who produce throw-away music, there will always be something interesting to listen to. I think it's important to have a balance in this regard, as it creates some form of interest in people in regards to listening to something seriously, as well as being able to purely listen to music just for an entertaining 'hit'.
With that said, I do think there is somewhat of a glut of average music in the mainstream at the moment, although, we were quite spoiled in the 90's in that regard.
Still, there are some great bands around who are in their prime, if you happen to get into them. I wouldn't particularly say, for instance, that there have been many recent bands who have done what Augie March are, and have been doing for the last few years. Popular their style may not be, but they are certainly up there as one of my favourite all-time bands.
Originally posted by DeLs
The music industry isn't about talent anymore, it's about money and what makes teeny boppers melt.
Where the money is, changes over time as well. In the 90's all the hype was around hard-rocking alt-metal/grunge bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins and co.
However, once you've got 10 or so top quality albums of this nature, you don't need to buy any more albums of a similar nature. The "new comers" aren't as appealing for the same generation, because it's been done before, and these people are looking for something new (which is why a lot of these bands eventually change their sound to produce more experimental records when compared to their original sound).
Likewise, the new generations who are consistently coming through want something new as well. Often it takes one or two differently styled songs/bands in order for a trend to begin, from which the new "happening" sounds are then established.
Whether this is as a result of a serious musical/artistic effort, or merely as a result of a brilliant marketting idea can often end up being irrelevant in the end, as all trends in the music industry end up being exploited by the market and other commercial aspects.
It's a fine line anyway. 'The Beatles' were one of the most commercial bands ever in many ways, yet, it didn't stop them from making brilliant records (and arguably assisted them in this regard).
In some ways commercialism 'can' help musicians to produce something brilliant, yet, at the same time it can also cause people to merely produce crap. It's an interesting debate, I guess.
In terms of the 'mainstream' of music, hopefully there will always be bands who have achieve a high level success whilst still maintaining a high degree of originality, along with a serious focus on the artistic/musical side of things.
AlfAndrews
19 Nov 2002, 15:39
Music (as an art-form) has never been in a healthier state. Technology has liberated the musician from the control of record companies. Anyone can record a CD these days. You don't need a record deal to do it. Just record it at home with whatever equipment you can afford.
Of course, getting it distributed and played is another matter. The market is flooded. There are more people making music than listening to it these days.
The music industry, by its own conservatism, has made itself irrelevant. The "product" they're selling isn't music. It's dross. It's meaningless. It's throwaway consumer rubbish. This month's hit album will be in the op shop for $2 next month.
And the technology that has liberated the musician from record company control is the same technology that is making it impossible for musicians to make a living. It's just too easy to copy music these days. Why pay for it? The world is flooded with music and no-one's got the time to listen to it.
There will be no music "industry", as such, within the next few years. Just a lot of highly creative musicians making brilliant music for their own enjoyment. And a queue of wannabes eager to sell their souls but finding, to their disappointment, that no one is buying any more.
The only people who'll make any money from it will be the peripheral players, such as the people who sell instruments or other items necessary for musicians to make music ... or roadies and sound engineers ... or people who service the "wannabe" industry. By that I mean people who can create the impression that they have "star-making" capabilities.
But even the money-making potential of the star-makers will diminish as more and more people realise that the music industry doesn't really exist any more.
Mr Eagle
19 Nov 2002, 20:15
Originally posted by Stocka
Where the money is, changes over time as well. In the 90's all the hype was around hard-rocking alt-metal/grunge bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins and co. However, once you've got 10 or so top quality albums of this nature, you don't need to buy any more albums of a similar nature.SO true...and in the midst of the teeny bopper hell that is 2002, guess what the last 3 Australian #1 albums have been?
2 weeks ago: Nirvana
Last week: U2
This week: Pearl Jam
The wheel is turning round, folks....
sandeano
19 Nov 2002, 20:32
In response to Alf's observations and predictions, I wish to pose the question that is true of not only music but art in general but also other pursuits, such as sport.
Let's say that Alf and his friends record an album, simply on home equipment.
The album may well be a masterpiece and possibly the best album ever.
However...the album receives no commercial airplay, nor distribution in the major outlets and of course no coverage on MTV or other similar programs.
No-one hears it.
It is still a brilliant piece of work?
Using say, the hypothetical Alf Andrews album as an example, can the 'worth' of a piece of music be only valued on the effect it has on the medium and the number of people it reaches?
Would the Beatles have been rated so highly had they have sold only a small number of records through an insignificant label to a bunch of enthusiastic devotees?....even if the records were exactly the same as those regarded as classics today?
Is the 'job' of any piece of art to touch as many as possible and feed the artform in general?
I remember a cricket writer once stating the greatest innings ever was by David Boon during a torrid test match in Pakistan back in the late 1980s. However, because there was no television coverage and few journalists witnessed the event, the only ones who knew the greatness of Boonie's feat were the few thousand that turned up to watch the game. Of course statistics show that Boon scored a hundred that day, but to most followers, the greatnes of the innings will never be known.
I suppose it has something to do with the ol' "if a tree falls in the forest..." question.
Docker_Brat
20 Nov 2002, 00:16
I think a few people have missed the point. There are some great new bands around.. agreed... and they aren't getting the airplay they deserve.
Orginality? There is none, most music is rehashed. Forget cover versions.. 'original' songs are influenced by old ones. Even the Beatles did cover songs and they performed an established style of music.. as great as they were.
Punk is alread a quarter of a century old.
I hope Alf is right, ("a lot of highly creative musicians making brilliant music for their own enjoyment") but the cynic in me says it aint gonna happen.
Having said all that.. it aint all bad, it just goes to show how good some of the older music was. Name me a new band that doesn't list 'influences'. But I wonder what will be the 'hits and memories' of todays generation.. "drove my Chevy to the levy.." bleating out of the radio in 2015, is kinda scary.
Rock and roll was created in the 50s.. what's next? Imagine kids in the 60's listening to something that originated in the 1910's..